Five men control AI. Who should control them?
Posted by andsoitis 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by danny_codes 17 hours ago
As training software and infrastructure matures plenty more entrants will enter the market. It’s not like this is a particularly challenging research field, just very expensive at the moment.
Comment by dangus 8 hours ago
Which one outperforms this small handful of options within the AI oligopoly?
This statement you’re making is like saying “there are dozens of Android phone OEMs” when in reality Apple is gobbling up 80% of the profits, Samsung/Google are consuming another 10%, and everyone outside of China has their app installs gated by Google Play or Apple App Store.
Comment by xnx 3 hours ago
Comment by billfor 1 day ago
Comment by camillomiller 1 day ago
Comment by xnx 22 hours ago
Comment by moralestapia 4 hours ago
Comment by comrade1234 1 day ago
Comment by stratos123 4 hours ago
Comment by saltyoldman 19 hours ago
Comment by drewfax 11 hours ago
Comment by gigatree 10 hours ago
Comment by stvltvs 8 hours ago
Comment by zzrrt 1 hour ago
Comment by nh23423fefe 4 hours ago
Comment by dj_rock 4 hours ago
Comment by saltyoldman 1 day ago
Comment by rolph 1 day ago
when someone presents a threat, at large, they have limited entitlement to walk among society, or act without review.
Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
The Helots were a threat to Spartans. Black Haitians to the French. Jews to the Reich.
Threats feel like a reasonable reason to reduce another’s rights. But they turn out to be the most usual way of tricking oneself into becoming a monster.
Comment by gobdovan 1 day ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
Comment by monknomo 1 day ago
Comment by rolph 22 hours ago
"The Spartans were a threat to Helots. the French to Black Haitians. the reich to the Jews."
justification, doesnt transform a victim into a threat.
Comment by Nasrudith 14 hours ago
Comment by metalman 12 hours ago
"justification, doesnt transform a victim into a threat"
unless the victim is Palestinian, and the monsters are jewdaic zionist terrorists, for more than 100 years now
Comment by rolph 7 hours ago
it doesnt matter who is right or wrong at the start, there is the attacker, and the attacked.
victim, and attacker swap places as they go around the wheel.
now what breaks every thing is when a militant in combat is spun as a victim, defending from mother and child.
generalizing based on nationality or eye color or anything else that is the actual problem you seem to be concerned about.
let that be your last battlefield.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefi...
Comment by npfo-hn 1 day ago
You win the "most HN post of the month" award. Never change, HN. Never change.
Comment by npfo-hn 1 day ago
Yes they did.
Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
On the most surface level, sure. Regulating something and controlling someone are, to me, different motivations.
Comment by operatingthetan 1 day ago
They literally did not.
Comment by rgbrgb 1 day ago
Comment by Nasrudith 14 hours ago
It reminds me of the 'Einstein's superintelligent cat' refutation to such fallacies. It went something like this: imagine Einstein has a superintelligenct cat. The room has only one door and it is locked. The cat is not capable of opening the lock due to lack of manual dexterity. The cat does not want to go into the carrier. Einstein is however an order of magnitude greater in mass. As much as the cat might want to escape Albert Einstein's grip he cannot. The superintelligent cat is going in the carrier.
The point being that, no, controlling or creating AI does not in fact equate to controlling society no matter how smart it gets. Even if we were so incredibly stupid to wire it up to be able to actually control an entire munitions factory it still can't take over society, and it only takes one bombing run or called in artillery strike to end the situation.
Yet in the real world we can trust private ownership of firearm factories, missile factories, and tank factories without a serious risk of a coup. Yet somehow AI is supposed to be what makes them a god-king? It strains credulity.
Comment by stratos123 4 hours ago
> It reminds me of the 'Einstein's superintelligent cat' refutation to such fallacies.
One (of the many) problem(s) with this "refutation" is that in reality not only does nobody bother to lock the superintelligent cat in room and leave it no available actions, but you're lucky if they don't hook the cat up directly to the internet. It doesn't matter whether you could maybe control a superintelligence, if you were very careful and treating it very seriously, when nobody is even trying, much less being very careful.
Comment by pixl97 10 hours ago
Because they are highly fucking regulated....
Start selling missiles to kids and watch yourself get put in a cage.
Comment by bigyabai 1 day ago
Comment by SilentM68 1 day ago
I probably won't be able to respond to this comment since some people on this forum have flagged my comments as inappropriate thus limiting the number of daily posts I can make :)
Comment by judahmeek 23 hours ago
I sure hope the theoretical timeline is compressed because the singularity under Donald Trump likely means that we're all dead due to misalignment.
Comment by lostmsu 10 hours ago
Comment by gizmodo59 1 day ago