Oh no, not senate action
How will they be able to handle the onslaught of a strongly worded letter?
I think we need to start talking global treaties where we just not produce for a minute. Like strategic factory shut downs that let us breath some fresh air.
Ai isn’t the only one polluting for no reason. No layoff. Just really nice time off to move about the world. Fuck ai for sure. Data centers are not needed when it’s only other AI bots talking to eachother. Build some housing and crisis help centers for fucks sake.
Stop with the threats and just fucking do it. This shit is why everyone thinks the Dems are useless.
I doubt he can. Too many other Senators getting checks from the Chatbot labs.
I mean if you didn’t already know Bernie isn’t a democrat.
He might as well be
What an idiotic statement. Bernie Sanders is always been an independent and has always voted that way. He has voted with the Republicans when things are needed and looks good he has voted with the Democrats when things are needed and looked good. But he also recognizes who the super fucked up ones are currently. And right now that ain’t the democrats.
It’s not a threat, it’s a plea.
The corpos like it more that way. After a little lobbying, a popular politician tells the world that their product is actually Great and Mighty, the media repeats it uncritically, and the public believes it.
Doesn’t matter if the product isn’t Great and Mighty, the stock goes up.
And that’s why they’re weak.
Well, they do not have any kind of majority at the moment. So no, they cannot do much without any republican spine.
After the midterms, let’s hope, they will have the majority everywhere except the White House. Which, after that, won’t take long.
Then why make threats they can’t back up? It just makes them look worse. Shit like this is not helping them get elected.
Perhaps to show the voters: see we want to change things, but you will have to get us in to make that happen?
It’s the repub’s that are stopping all this?
Demonstrating it that way doesn’t work. If they’re proposing action they know will be blocked it just makes their words look hollow.
Yeah, I have to agree. I always try to find the most positive angle, hoping to the Gods that is was a positive thing…
But no, they are incompetent aren’t they.
Did he buy into their hype claims of sentient AI?
I hope not
Stop the investment, most importantly.
Bernie Sanders sadly didn’t get the message and wants the American government to own 50% of the stock of major AI companies instead, which means the government would have an even bigger reason to invest more in them.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has proposed a remittance tax on certain artificial intelligence companies amounting to 50% of the company’s outstanding equity interests. Sanders says these equity interests could be used to establish a sovereign wealth fund, with annual direct payment distributions to Americans
What the fuck are you talking about no he doesn’t lol? None of what you said is true or makes sense. He wants AI stock wealth to be given back to the people.
There is nothing in there about the government owning the stock or even benefiting from the stock?
I’m not sure what’s up with the hostility and calling everybody here dumb, but you’re not talking about the same thing as I am.
He wants AI stock wealth to be given back to the people.
It won’t be.
The stock will be taken by the government, and run by people chosen by Donald Trump and the majority-Republican Senate.
The Independent Commission would consist of seven members nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate
Considering AI is unprofitable, and considering the rampancy of corruption in the Trump administration, this is an extremely naive position to hold at best, and an actively harmful one at worst.
Because they’re saying dumb things and unfortunately holding hands and being shy about someone’s straight lack of thinking doesn’t really get people to see the point. The comments in this section state:
- Bernie is both not doing his job(he is) and benefitting from this/AI
-AI is both bad and worthless but also dangerous and Bernie is dumb for trying to do anything (complete fallacy of the weak/dangerous threat kind, the enemy is both weak but dangerous. Silly)
-Absolutely fake claims like the one above.
So the whole comment section is just rife with stupidity. Stupid isn’t even a bad word.
Back to what you said. I literally don’t understand why you act like it says stock changes anything or anything about what I said? Literally useless points you keep highlighting. Nothing is made more clear by whatever you’re trying to say.
Donald Trump already had the upper hand he doesn’t care about the rule of law. Dunno why you’re viewing this like game of thrones.
Bernie Sanders wants the wealth amassed by these AI companies which have stolen data and work of billions of people across generations to be handed back to the people. His strategy is to tax the STOCK (not sure why we’re bolding it but sure I’ll play along). He is following the regular ruling that stands for creating panels, legislative bodies, committee establishment process. The president nominates THE SENATE CONFIRMS(because you glossed over that part) this is literally the standard practice.
So I don’t understand what you think you’re making clear or how what he’s doing is wrong here. He’s following the rules and wants to tax the stock of companies that have taken advantage of Americans. It literally makes complete sense and is nothing like what the comment above claims.
The comment above suggests the government will own the stock? Or something ridiculous and Bernie wants to give that power to the president. Which is what I imagine an insane person’s interpretation of that article might be if they didn’t know anything about government functions or something. So in conclusion, it’s a very stupid interpretation.
The “tax” just transfers shares of the for-profit companies into a State organization.
So CEOs like Elon Musk will keep using them as CSAM generators, while the State is incentivized to keep them profitable… Even though we have no reason to assume they’ll ever turn a profit.
AI should not be treated as “too
biginevitable to fail” and yet here Bernie is.The president nominates THE SENATE CONFIRMS(because you glossed over that part) this is literally the standard practice.
Re-read my previous comment. I mentioned the Republican-controlled Senate explicitly. Did you need it to be in bold too or what?
This comment section is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
Onward the Butlerian Jihad! No prisoners!
They bought the senate Bernie
Any pause will have to be a global treaty; the unfortunate reality is that we’re in an arms race now, and despite Sanders’ threats otherwise, I don’t think there is going to be much will to pause in the US while China keeps developing.
And to be clear, I think it would be every wise to pause development and, afterwards, keep the pace slow. We know how to make “AI” more capable, but we don’t know how to make it stay aligned with human goals. The technology is useful and isn’t going anywhere, but that doesn’t mean we have to develop it as quickly as possible without regard to the real dangers it brings with it.
We’re not in an arms race. That’s part of the bullshit Anthropic and like want you to believe. LLMs are not nukes. LLMs are a fad with most benefits having been to coders, presuming they were already good coders.
25 years from now we’re either going to still be in this “arms race,” or we’ll have better clarity on how the billionaire class misled us all.
Stopping development will do us more good than the harm of perusing a perpetual wealth transfer in the name of a fake arms race.
Even if it were an arms race. Slowing down means you eventually speed back up in a better direction. Why would you want to be so gun ho about what’s clearly an argument for progressing with arrogance toward the technology, because someone else might discover something first? What?
The chatbot labs don’t have 25 years. They might have 2.
What expertise are you drawing from to come to this conclusion?
Here’s a decent resource if you care to read about, rather than the podcast: https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/research/1-3-ai-arms-race-2-0-from-deregulation-to-industrial-policy
I would summarize it to conclude: The “AI arms race” is not an objective technological fact so much as a politically useful narrative that has helped align government policy with the interests of large AI companies.
My opinion is that we should be a lot more critical of this narrative.
I am definitely going to read that link, from the start at 1.0, but now right now. Thanks, though.
Accepting your summary (and sorry if I ask a question answered in the link) but what would an “objective technological fact” regarding any technology being an arms race look like? As in, it seems obvious that a technology that can perform complex exploits of software vulnerabilities without human assistance could be used as a weapon-- so why wouldn’t that be a national concern to ensure America has the better technology? How is this different than missiles or bombs, from a technological standpoint?
To be fair, an AI system capable of independently discovering and exploiting serious software vulnerabilities would be a legitimate national-security concern. The US would have a strong interest in possessing and defending against that capability.
But a technology is not itself an arms race. An arms race is a pattern of behavior between adversaries involving that technology. That requires observable political, military and economic facts.
I would point these out as red flags:
- Developing identifiable autonomous cyberweapons.
- Each side expands its program substantially because it believes the other is expanding.
- Established military units, budgets, infrastructure and deployment plans around those systems.
I would point these out as not counting:
- AI can be weaponized.
- China is developing AI.
- AI could confer military advantages.
- American companies are spending heavily on general-purpose models.
- The United States wants to lead commercially.
In table format, the comparison between AI and those other technologies would ideally look something like this:
Technology General capability Particular weapon Nuclear physics Energy, medicine, scientific research Nuclear warhead Rocketry Satellites, transport, exploration Ballistic missile Combustion engines Cars, generators, machinery Tank propulsion AI Medicine, logistics, coding, science, communications Autonomous targeting or exploitation system An AI arms race would look very different than what we see right now.
With the AI bubble, the communities being disrupted by the environmental impacts of data centers (including infranoise), the constant fear of “use AI or be replaced by AI,” the risky financials on all of this, … all the people that lost retirement value to the SpaceX IPO, … this stuff is a serious public nuisance.
We don’t need tech CEOs scaring us with talk of an “arms race.” It’s fucked up.
Here’s a really good podcast on the subject: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000779843294
They discuss a lot of the same points I would, right there. The incentives of AI leaders, Chinas current position, the lies from AI companies to communities, the way their stories change, the fact that they’re the ones calling it an “arms race.”
I would alternatively ask this: what expertise claims we are in an arms race? AI companies don’t count as expertise on global arms races, in what I think is a reasonable opinion.
Do doctors and pharmaceutical companies count as experts when discussing vaccines?
There are several problems here. If you address them, I’m happy to answer your question faithfully. But as it stands, I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.
First and foremost, we’re specifically discussing an “arms race,” not just a “race.” I fail to understand what qualifies an AI company to be an expert in national security, weapons, and foreign affairs. To me, an AI company is an expert in what makes them more profit. That just so happens to involve AI here, but not “arms races.”
Second, doctors are probably not necessarily experts on vaccines. They’re likely to be experts on vaccine benefits, recommendation, procurement, administering, storage, … but that’s just administration and some operational knowledge. A vaccine expert (IMO) is a specialist for vaccines. They’re probably not working in a hospital.
A pharmaceutical company might be an expert on vaccines. But what’s the parallel to AI companies? Pharmaceutical companies research and develop actual vaccines. AI companies do not research and develop arms. The only argument I understand for this would be to say that an LLM is a weapon.
I don’t buy that an LLM is a weapon. Real competition exists, and certain military applications could become arms races, but AI as a whole is not one. Building out swaths of data centers to power more AI without a concrete public benefit isn’t something we should put up with.
You don’t benefit from the narrative that this is an arms race, not as an individual or a citizen. The benefactors here are the AI companies.
The technology can certainly be used as a weapon; it can hack systems already, and defend against hacks. This capability will only increase, and logically the better AI affords a strategic benefit. Hence, an arms race.
The rest of your questions aren’t questions or presuppose that AI can’t be used as a weapon.
In case it isn’t obvious, there are experts in this field that aren’t employed by AI.
Hence, an arms race.
The term “arms race” has a definition and I’m pretty sure this still doesn’t apply. So in my opinion, even at best, this is political propaganda.
An “arms race” is a competition over the quality or quantity of military capabilities between states in the international system.
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/62239/chapter-abstract/550799699
The US and China are in an economic race. We aren’t racing to develop a particular military capability. Nobody can even name what that capability would be… “mass hacking?” Is that it? Sounds scary… I don’t buy it. It gives me the impression of fear mongering.
If it were about AI driven military capabilities, we could have probably worked with the compute we had years ago.
I think what should be obvious is the fact that “can be used as a weapon” doesn’t justify it being an “arm.” The fact that they can “hack” now is largely irrelevant. It’s a nice talking point that was parroted around the AI circle jerk recently, but largely unsubstantiated. I think they all caught on to the hype Mythos was getting, so they took the narrative for another spin. But even Mythos was a load of propaganda.
How do you know it wasn’t conveniently allowed to happen, to further fuel the propaganda machine? How do you know they didn’t exaggerate or leave blank important details, particularly because they’re financially incentivized to maintain the hype?
State actors have always hacked one another. Now with a fancy tool to do automated discovery, they might be a little faster. But that speed is also arguable, because there are reports on how AI led development actually shifts the development time burden rather than resolving it.
In case it isn’t obvious, there are experts in this field that aren’t employed by AI.
Those experts in the field (that aren’t employed by AI) mostly agree with this stance, from what I can tell.
I linked a paper in one of my earlier replies. Here’s another by a different author: https://tnsr.org/2021/06/debunking-the-ai-arms-race-theory/
… and, I just found a table. Here’s 7 more I guess.
Experts Published position Paul Scharre “Debunking the AI Arms Race Theory” Heather Roff “The frame problem: The AI ‘arms race’ isn’t one” Stefka Schmid, Daniel Lambach, Carlo Diehl and Christian Reuter “Arms Race or Innovation Race? Geopolitical AI Development” Alexander Pascal and Tim Hwang “Artificial Intelligence Isn’t an Arms Race” Remco Zwetsloot, Helen Toner and Jeffrey Ding “Beyond the AI Arms Race” Yonathan Arbel and Matthew Tokson “The AI Race Isn’t Real” Colin Kahl “The Myth of the AI Race”
Arms race
Woah, we’re talking LLMs here, this is not a secret military technology. And China is very open about the developments made there - you can freely study and reverse engineer plenty of Chinese models, and see all the weights out in the open.
This whole race about them is, in my opinion, nothing but trying to pump the bubble even faster, churning the economy in the process and playing on gullible or self-interested politicians. Countries will be just fine assessing risks and then moving on.
It’s a one participant race. They’re throwing fears about Chinese LLM because of the fact that many of their models end up being open-source, and they know if they don’t get people cemented into their models before some open-sourced Chinese alternative manages to meet(or even exceed ) their performance. No company is going to pay them money because they’re just gonna run it themselves for way less than subscription costs.
right now, they acknowledge that the non-US alternatives for the models are gaining traction and are getting pretty dang good, and that scares them, so they’ve moved over to customer lock-in hoping that the effort it would take to move from a subscription model over to one of the alternative models wouldn’t be worth it for a company. A US only pause would almost certainly leave them dead in the water.
Any pause will have to be a global treaty
Which is why tech CEOs love to promote it. They know it’ll never happen.
We know how to make “AI” more capable, but we don’t know how to make it stay aligned with human goals.
“Alignment” is almost entirely a myth cooked up by AI companies who want to make their word generators sound scarier than they are. There’s no such thing: the next word generator generates next word. It’s unpredictable because it’s built that way. “Hallucination” and “going rogue”, all poor terms and pathetic attempts to fearmonger and humanize, are identical functions to “working” and “aligning”.
The technology… isn’t going anywhere
The “it’s just inevitable” cliche rears its ugly head again.
That cliche is the worst. If applied to anything else you can see how absurd it is. Like NFTs aren’t going anywhere, crime isn’t going anywhere, etc.
Except NFTs were never used to nearly even close to the same amount as AI, it had much less usecases and the one that did “catch on” was idiotic.
Crime is a symptom of a problem, not a technological advancement, apples and oranges.
AI the tool is never going away in the same way the internet is never going away. (Barring our entire civilization collapses and we lose knowledge/connectivity/life lmao)
“AI is never going away” neither did NFTs nor crime, nor anything else really. We should try to stop these awful companies from doing awful things.
The point of the “its not going away” comment is because a shocking number of people think the solution to AI is to, I dunno, delete it.
As a technology, it is out in the world. It isn’t going away any more than electricity or the internet. So any solutions to the real problems with AI that are essentially “make it go away” are essentially nonsense. Might as well propose wishing it away with a genie.
“It’s not going away” is not equivalent to “there’s nothing we can do to solve the problems”; it just means that the solution has to be in a framework where it is implemented alongside AI.
That is a solution, make it very unappealing to use it. If it’s clearly a crime, most people don’t have the hardware to do it, and others don’t have the motivation, it’d help a lot. And again, NFTs
Most people do have the hardware to run them. Maybe not super high end ones but middle of the road ones.
Again, the solution won’t ever be “no more AI”. The solution will be regulation, social safety nets, taxation, etc.
I agree?
Then what’s the point of saying that line? It’s a pointless line that means to put down any solution to the problem saying “well, actually, it’ll never go away!” instead of thinking about how one could drastically reduce the harm by trying to make it go away anyways
Because the underlying problem isn’t the tool.
Alignment is a real thing, though it can be a less than apt description. Mostly the goals you write out and the goals you want to happen not being the same thing. You can also have alignment issues where the dataset doesn’t match the real data in some way and the classifications break down. (I am not an AI defender I am very anti-AI)
I thought alignment was just preventing the llm from making porn or bomb recipes to avoid legal trouble
No, that would be bad, but not misaligned necessarily. That’s a different issue really. Like lets say you use ML to make an AI to play a video game and the goal is always on the right side, but after you’re done training, it’s on the left now, the AI might have not learned go the goal, but go to the right.
Your opinion is borne from lack of knowledge about the topic you’re trying to discuss, similar to an anti-vaxxer attempting to discuss the dangers of mRNA vaccines.
Fix your lack of knowledge or don’t; that’s your call, but if you care about discussing this topic somewhat intelligently, you should probably put in some effort to understand it.
I said several things so how about you actually address them, instead of resorting to an insult and vaguely telling me to “do my research”?
Do you deny this latest wave of companies doing the exact same routine is a PR stunt, or that companies badly want regulatory capture, or what?
I meant no insult, truly. You just don’t have the minimum required knowledge to discuss this intelligently. There’s no shame in that; no one can know everything.
I can’t know the motives of anyone, but I can say it’s at least plausible that the people working on the frontier models want an excuse to slow down that doesn’t give an advantage to other countries and companies, and also doesn’t put them in the crosshairs of investors and board members.
You apparently still internalize LLMs as fancy Markov chains, which tells me that you don’t have a working grasp to discuss the topic, even at the laymen level we’re at.
These hacking events may be “PR Stunts”, but the “stunt” part would be leaving a known vulnerability as a path to the wider Internet instead of making it physically impossible to break out, not the hacking of other websites. No one credible is disputing that these models are capable of hacking.
I meant no insult
Uh-huh. You compared me to an antivaxxer , implying that people who disagree with you don’t believe in science or technology - the same reason you felt the need to throw in the “inevitability” cliche. Which I do not buy, and somebody claiming to understand the technology should never repeat.
Later, you say anyone who disagrees with you just feels “desperate” and “threatened.” You’re really pulling everything from the “I am rational and you are neurotic” playbook aren’t you.
I can’t know the motives of anyone, but I can say it’s at least plausible that the people working on the frontier models want an excuse to slow down that doesn’t give an advantage to other countries and companies, and also doesn’t put them in the crosshairs of investors and board members.
It’s all the same song and dance. Dario Amodei screams “hold me back!” because he loves pretending his product is Great and Powerful.
Why do these developers never talk about real harms like the environmental damage they cause? How about the psychosis they are liable to fall into?
It’s pretty obvious they’re just doing marketing, knowingly or not. And these are smart people who should know better.
@XLE I reported the little troll.
Computer science is still science. You distrust the experts in the field based on what? Something you saw on social media? Certainly not your own expertise, that much is clear.
Don’t move the goalposts. No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides. That’s different than your original claim that they didn’t do what they appear to do.
I don’t suppose you happen to be in a field threatened by AI? In my anecdotal experience, the people that desperately want to pretend AI is all a scam are actually worried about the opposite, and their job. (A real concern I’m in no way trying to minimize.)
I can’t tell if you’re reading what I’m writing. I mention CEOs twice and you assert I’m not listening to “The Experts”.
No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides.
You mean climate damage and psychosis?
Zero of the “experts” in your strained theory about looking for excuses to “pause” AI ever talk about them. It’s almost like they don’t want to imply their product is unworthy of all the hype, doomerism and fearmongering.
Removed by mod
Wow. What an awful person.
It’s beyond “an arms race.” AI has become a commodity that’s everywhere and it’s being used and developed by zillions of completely different groups all over the world with wildly varying use cases and completely different goals.
At this point, trying to ban it would be like trying to ban dandelions from growing.
The groups doing frontier research with the appropriate funding are few enough that a global pause would be possible, and useful.
I agree that a ban would be impossible, and counterproductive even if it were possible.
Except when you think about if a ban were actually implemented it would absolutely be pro-entrenched companies like OpenAI and Anthropic and open weight models could be banned outright, I’ve already seen well-intentioned but misguided “experts” saying exactly that, BAN open weight models and pause further development, who would that benefit directly?
Order Nvidia and AMD to stop selling AI GPUs or whatever they’re called.
Which country is doing the ordering?
If he can get senate action on AI then why can’t he get senate action on all the other plethora of crap happening to us right now?
He cant, but he wants to. Which is important.
We should never take something away from an action with good intentions, just because others want to stop him.
Thats not how we get the change in the end. Because someday it might succeed.
Why is he even bothering to do his job if he’s struggling to do his job? He should just be shitty and useless like the others! /S
What will the senate do? Lol Americans and their pathetic signal politics
Just like they told people not to clone. Mostly the rich are cloning to harvest organs for themselves. Hopefully their “AI” will fuck that up for them somehow.
Seeing this type of comment is why Lemmy is fucking idiotic.
oh good luck with that bernie… while he’s not wrong, there’s too much money passing hands for this to be a threat
Acctually its the same $20 being passed around they have just really improved the speed and efficiency of passing it on.
“I’m not gay, but $20 is $20.”
Sam Altman has entered the chat
What Senate action will he take? Have a hearing when the senators will try to get sound bites in for reelection?
Yeah why should he do his job why isn’t he just being useless like the rest! /S
At this point US Senat actions (especially those by Democrats) seem even less effective than European serious concern.
EU actually gets changes done tho.
Sure, but the serious concern is the least efficient tool they have.
