[pdonis]

> without allowing superpowers to escape into the wrong hands

The wrong hands will have the same access to whatever "superpowers" AI gives regardless of what regulations are or are not put in place. Regulations can't and won't stop potential bad actors with state-level resources, like China, from using any technology they decide they want to use. So trying to regulate on that basis is a fool's errand.

The real question is, what will put the good actors in a better position to fight the bad actors if it ever comes to that: a big tech monopoly or decentralized open source anarchy? The answer should be obvious. No monopoly is going to out-innovate decentralized open source.

> I'm not sure how easy it will be to stop bad actors since barriers to entry are exponentially lower to developing a malicious AI tool than, say, developing a nuke.

Since some bad actors already have nukes, the answer to this should be obvious too: it's what I said above about the wrong hands getting access to technology.

[ta1243]

China, Iran, North Korea, Iran, US, Israel, Europe aren't bad actors. The bad actors don't have state level resources.

[dragonwriter]

> China, Iran, North Korea, Iran, US, Israel, Europe aren't bad actors

On a very good day, as many as three of those might simultaneously not be bad actors.

They aren't bad actors whose access to AI technology is likely to be meaningfully impacted by regulation (but, for certain of the non-US ones, that hasn't stopped the US from trying before), but that's a different issue.

[pdonis]

> China, Iran, North Korea, Iran, US, Israel, Europe aren't bad actors.

Seriously? You don't think China, Iran, and North Korea are bad actors? What planet are you on?

[ta1243]

Well depends on your point of view

But I don't see China or North Korea firing nukes or even blowing up western buildings. They are limited by the threat of response.

A rogue wacko in his basement can make Kim Jong Un look like Theodore Roosevelt.

[pbronez]

The term you’re looking for is “constrained” and “unconstrained” actors. The Chinese and North Korean governments are state level actors, constrained by their internal institutions and power dynamics. A rogue wacko is unconstrained - they do whatever they want with no limitations beyond their own mind and individual capabilities.

Examples:

In the Iran Hostage Crisis you had a constrained actor (Iranian government) making somewhat rational choices to use hostage taking as a negotiation tactic.

In the Oklahoma City Bombing, you had unconstrained actors (Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols) blowing up a building with a vehicle borne improvised explosive device for personal reasons.

[PeterisP]

We do see North Korea, Russia and Iran funding cyberattacks (e.g. major ransomware operations) and supplying weapons to various external groups. If/when we get to a stage when a wacko in his basement possessing some AI tool could be dangerous, we can expect state-level bad actors to make and deliver such tools to any wacko they'll consider likely to use against the west i.e. us.

[jmfldn]

Interesting point. Perhaps you're right. I hope so, as someone who otherwise believes in the FOSS ideal.