[tyre]

What are you suggesting as an alternative?

Everyone seems to want some fairytale world where there are open models, they’re all safe according to that person’s exact balance of risk and capabilities, and no one except the author or cynics are acting in good faith.

What Dario lays out is very reasonable _of course_ the devil is in the details, but between him and Altman, there’s a clear divide on who to trust.

[sbarre]

How about we don't trust either of the proprietary shovel salesmen?

[tyre]

Again, what are you proposing for the problem of models becoming increasingly capable and dangerous?

Be specific.

[lenkite]

Until models become sentient, it requires a human to execute dangerous activities. Nations already have laws regarding what a human can and cannot do. Let us stick to that.

[anthonypasq]

Im sorry but this is nonsense. You dont give people unrestricted access to explosives and then punish them after they blow something up. You prevent them from getting it in the first place if you actually believe the item is as dangerous as stated.

[lenkite]

I am sorry but this is nonsense. People already have access on how to make explosives. There are academic textbooks and professional reference manuals that cover the science, synthesis, and industrial manufacturing of explosive materials.

Information != physical medium.

[hephaes7us]

Crime is already illegal.

[unholiness]

And who is held responsible for crimes committed by AI?

When open model A, fine tuned by B, is running with system prompt C, hosted by D running on E's hardware, is prompted by F to "fix this code", then escapes it's sandbox to hack into a website, or steal money to fund its subagents, or stall the waymo of the evaluator to buy time... who is responsible for the crime?

Our current legal systems are so far from ready to define what A-F are actually responsible for. We need to be moving toward defining these standards fast.

[watwut]

It is a software system, not a person. AI is not "escaping sandbox". You have either misconfigured tool, bug in your tool or someone made it to hack the side and then it is a crime. Your A-F chain is exactly the same issue as a programmer including an open source library that eventually steals crypto.

None of that is issue with a model, whether open or not. It is very much issue with code surrounding the model itself.

[applfanboysbgon]

> increasingly capable and dangerous

It's a fucking chatbot. The industry can fix their dogshit software, anyone who doesn't can get left behind and outcompeted by those who do, and we move on with our lives.

[cogman10]

> What are you suggesting as an alternative?

This isn't something that can be regulated. Plain and simple.

If a dangerous model can exist and is being developed by a foreign adversary then no level of US law will stop said model from making it's way to hardware capable of running it. Even if direct transmission is impossible, it's FAR too easy to shove a model's data onto 1 or more thumb drives or hard drives and smuggle them pretty much anywhere in the world.

The only way to actually mitigate this sort of risk would be a global government with deep enforcement powers. That doesn't exist and won't exist. The UN is the closest we have to anything like that and... yeah...

Dario is fear mongering. He knows his proposals won't be even a minor speed bump in a dangerous model being created and used. His "reasonable" proposals are for the US market only and are literally just to create a bigger moat for his own company. They don't make anyone safer other than his shareholder's wallets. The only people he stops these dangerous models from being used by are people that won't be using them in a dangerous fashion.

[calgoo]

Well, Dario says one thing and then turns around and sells his model to the US government to use against the entire world for spying and their wars, just like Altman. Just because he does not sound as deranged as Altman, does not make him good.

Now, to what he lays out, its not reasonable, its only reasonable from a purely American corporate viewpoint where the rest of the world can crash and burn as long as they get their billions.

[pejrich]

Any model that is going to be meaningfully useful is going to have the potential for harm too. It's not possible to know enough about chemistry to be useful to a chemist, without also being able to figure out how to synthesize drugs. It's not possible to have enough knowledge to be useful to any/all programmers, without being able to figure out how to hack a system, or create a virus. That's just kind of life though.

[crossroadsguy]

There is no alternative. Why? The regulation is good only for US interests. It will be disastrous for the rest of the world like anything US has regulated (how dangerous that was like "nukes") and a lot of the world again will/might have to live under the American AI thumb, like it did (and many countries still do) under the US nuclear emboldened thumb.

> Everyone seems to want some fairytale world where there are open models

No, everyone wants a fairytale world where regulations are done "fairly", "openly", and "equally" - for both access and advancement. And everyone knows that's not gonna happen. Hell, everyone now knows exactly what it is. If you haven't understood it yet, then either you don't want to, or you just can't (for whatever reason).

No one wants to die in a nuclear or AI or AI+nuclear holocaust. But HN doesn't read world history, does it?

[unholiness]

> The regulation is good only for US interests.

I think your nuclear scenario outlines precisely why this isn't true. Nuclear regulation has terms that are "good for the US" only in an absolute sense. The US would dominate even more overwhelmingly in the unregulated scenario, which gave them negotiation power to get those favorable terms. The same seems true so far with AI.

I don't think you can use the successful negotiation of nuclear regulations to argue there is "no alternative" involving regulation. I think it strongly suggests the opposite.

Of course the details matter a lot, but the core analogy holds in many scenarios. ( https://ai-2040.com/ at least attempts to lay out details, speculative as they may be)

[0xDEAFBEAD]

What if it was an international organization with stakeholders from various national governments and international bodies?

[calgoo]

You mean like the UN?

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Possibly it could be organized through the UN