[hyeonwho22]

Is that a serious argument against an AI pause? There are potential scenarios in which regulating AI is challenging, so it isn't worth doing? Why don't we stop regulating nuclear material while we're at it?

In my mind the existential risks make regulation of large training runs worth it. Should distributed training runs become an issue we can figure out a way to inspect them, too.

To respond to the specific htpothetical, if that scenario happens it will presumably be by either a botnet, by a large group of wealthy hobbyists, or by a corporation or a nation state intent on circumventing the pause. Botnets have been dismantled before, and large groups of wealthy hoobyists tend to interested in self preservation (at least more so than individuals). Corporate and state actors defecting on international treaties can be penalized via standard mechanisms.

[api]

You are talking about some pretty heavy handed authoritarian stuff to ban math on the basis of hypothetical risks. The nuclear analogy isn’t applicable because we all know that a-bombs really work. There is no proof of any kind of outsized risk from real world AI beyond other types of computing that can be used for negative purposes like encryption or cryptocurrency.

Here’s a legit question: you say pause. Pause until what? What is the go condition? You can never prove an unbounded negative like “AI will never ever become dangerous” so I would think there is no go condition anyone could agree on.

… which means people eventually just ignore the pause when they get tired of it and the hysteria dies out. Why bother then?