[jtode]

Yah, being cynical about a giant corporation inflating the scope of a new parlor trick in an attempt to establish a legal moat is exactly the same as ignoring over thirty years of scientific concensus against a torrent of tobacco-industry-style denialism to keep line going up.

[reducesuffering]

A giant corporation? You know that Hinton doesn't work for Google, and Bengio, the most cited computer scientist of all time, is saying the same thing?

Have a look at https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk and keep the check on just "AI Scientists"...

Too lazy? There are over 100 CS professors and scientists

Plus neither of the CEO's of Microsoft or Google are on there

It's the corporate camp, companies and investors, that are gung-ho about pushing capabilities immediately because there's big $$ in their eyes. You're the one falling for the safety denialism pushed by corporate interests, a la tobacco

[randomdata]

> A giant corporation? You know that Hinton doesn't work for Google

U of T is a giant corporation in its own right.

> Too lazy? There are over 100 CS professors and scientists

And also Grimes. But what do these particular experts really know about humans and what vulnerabilities they have? This isn't a computer science problem. Being an expert in something doesn't make you an expert in everything.

[jtode]

So what's the plan for putting it back in the bottle? llama is already out there, the chatbots are already out there.

I think the solution is that government should standup a bunch of compute farms and give all citizens equal access to the pool, and the FOSS community should develop all tools for it, out in the open where everyone can see.

[reducesuffering]

There isn't a feasible plan, we're at the "sounding the alarm part." Unfortunately, we're still there because most people don't even acknowledge the possible danger. We can't get to a feasible plan until people actually agree there's a danger. Climate change is 1 step past, that there is a danger, but not a feasible plan.

However, your solution is first day naivety for the problems machine intelligence poses to us. It's akin to saying everybody should have powerful mini-nukes so that they can defend themselves.

[jtode]

I would counter that

a) what is currently being touted as AI is neither artificial, nor is it intelligent. This is a bunch of hucksters saying "we made a scary demon with powers and now we're scared it's going to kill us all!" but in fact it's just a plagiarism machine, a stochastic parrot. Yes, it will get more useful as time goes on, but the main blockade is always going to be access to compute capacity, and the only viable solution to that is a socialist approach to all data processing infrastructure.

b) even if we stipulate that there is a scary daemon that could consume us all (and meanwhile teach me linear algebra and C++), and we transform that into pocket nukes as a more terrifying metaphor cause why not, your solution seems to be to pretend that your mini-nukes cannot be assembled from parts at hand by anyone who knows a bit of Python.

They can.