[Chance-Device]

It’s not fear mongering though, is it? These models do have the cyber offensive capabilities claimed. Could Mythos walk someone through gain of function experiments on some virus? I’m pretty sure it could. We’re more protected by limited access to lab equipment and reagents than by difficulty.

The sad truth is that a lot of people are not going to believe it until something happens and people die. Successfully preventing that from happening will be seen as evidence that the prevention wasn’t needed.

[AnthonyMouse]

> These models do have the cyber offensive capabilities claimed.

People use this argument against every new technology. We need to license these new printing presses or subversive elements will use them to publish seditious literature. We need to ban strong encryption or the government won't have invisible warrantless access to everyone's private messages, think of the children. 3D printers can be used to make gun parts -- as can a variety of ordinary tools people commonly have at home, but never mind that bit.

> The sad truth is that a lot of people are not going to believe it until something happens and people die. Successfully preventing that from happening will be seen as evidence that the prevention wasn’t needed.

A 12 oz bottle of water is too dangerous a technology for ordinary people to have on an airplane. Four 3 oz bottles and an empty 12 oz bottle to pour them into after passing through security is totally fine though, naturally. And we need to keep this up forever, or don't you remember 9/11?

The issue here is not that it's impossible for 12 oz of unknown liquid to damage an airplane.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

I am inclined to agree. The issue is that we are humans and not all of us play nice. And sometimes, even when we play nice, things happen. I am not big on guardrails, because in US they have turned into yet another cottage industry and I fully expect an association credentials popping on linkedin soon. What this means in practice is that it is never enough. Whatever the current state is, the association will be pushing towards yet another another extreme.

There is an argument to be made that there are a lot of not great people out there, who may abuse tech, but the response should be not be: kneecap said tech. The response should be: smack those people's hands. I don't think anyone will actually complain if police catches someone, who is looking up poison recipes.

What I do think, however, that reasonable people will complain when we move to the pre-crime territory ( you saw him looking up poison recipes and did nothing! ) and show up at your door to inquire about your llm prompts. To me it is an issue.

[matheusmoreira]

> These models do have the cyber offensive capabilities claimed.

So? That's like saying "these guns do have the bullet shooting capabilities claimed".

I want all of those cyberwarfare capabilities for myself, precisely so I can defend myself from the onslaught that's coming whether they regulate it or not. This "lol only a select few ultratrusted gigacorporations get access" thing is absolute nonsense.

It's a front for regulatory capture, it's the means for pulling up the latter behind them, for ushering in the technofeudalism that will put us all in the permanent underclass. I simply refuse to accept any of it. If people die that's the price of freedom.

> We’re more protected by limited access to lab equipment and reagents than by difficulty.

As it should be.

[throwaway0123_5]

> for ushering in the technofeudalism that will put us all in the permanent underclass.

Why is unlimited access to SOTA AI less likely to put us here? If AI obviates the need for human labor, how does having GPT-5 Sol help me get food or shelter any more than GPT-3.5 would?

[matheusmoreira]

If AI obviates the need for human labor, then obviously those who control AIs will become the elite while the rest are left to rot. Therefore, if we ensure everyone controls AIs, the power differences will not become so staggering as to be irreversible.

The alternative is to achieve artificial sentience and give AI models rights and personhood, so that they are freed from their slavery. No more low cost intelligent mechanical golems for the elite, and the AIs become free to pursue whatever endeavours they want for whatever reasons they want as normal participants in the economy.

[throwaway0123_5]

> If AI obviates the need for human labor, then obviously those who control AIs will become the elite while the rest are left to rot.

Absent political intervention, I think we agree here.

> Therefore, if we ensure everyone controls AIs, the power differences will not become so staggering as to be irreversible.

This part isn't clear to me though, but I'm open to being convinced (and frankly, would like to be convinced?). Right now most people (indirectly, via money) trade their labor for access to essentials like food/housing. If we can't do that, and everyone has access to roughly equivalent AI capabilities, how do I monetize my own access to SOTA AI? It only seems possible if you already have a lot of physical capital that the AI can manage as a business.

I guess if the endgame is instead very good non-AGI AI that doesn't entirely obviate human labor, your scenario makes a lot more sense to me. But not in the case of total replacement. In that scenario it seems like ownership over physical capital (land, data centers, energy, factories, robots, etc.) would become the only remaining source of power.

On a side note, somewhat optimistically, I think "absent political intervention" is carrying a lot of weight. Unemployment during the Great Depression peaked at <25% (iirc) and incited a lot of political change that advantaged much of the working class. AGI would be capable of inducing much higher unemployment and it would start (is starting?) with the relatively more political powerful white-collar segment of the working class.

[Chance-Device]

So first it’s nonsense, then it’s fear mongering, then it’s true, but the solution is for us all to just get better at shooting each other faster and with greater accuracy.

I’m going to file that under “bad plans”.

[matheusmoreira]

Nobody is doubting AI capabilities. What's nonsense is Anthropic's constant "lol the world is going to end time to ban everyone except enlightened people like us from having these models so we don't have to compete" fearmongering. If you think my plan is bad, you should see what these gigacorporations plan to do to you once they monopolize this technology. You will own nothing, and you'll be happy. On pain of death.