I mean I don’t buy any of it but I am still ok with this. It would be sooo fun to pass this law and see how fast they turn from AI doomsayers to AI cynics.
There are people facing weed sentences with harsher time than developing rogue nuclear weapons
Americans are INSANE about how much the want criminals punished, in CA a guy got a life sentence for stealing a pizza when we tried to have a ‘‘three strikes your out’’ law that automatically gave life sentences at any third conviction which is fucking crazy in a state with tack on laws to the point you can get convicted of 10+ crimes on almost every single infraction, if you commit a felony with a pen or pencil in your pocket, that’s possession of a lethal weapon! it’s absurd. it’s still on the books the three strikes law, but it’s unenforceable because apparently having 60% of your population in prison for life is not a great plan for a civilization.
Well, they were probably trying to develop that weed into rogue nuclear weapons.
Wouldn’t work. You’ll get blasted high, but what the missing is the mushroom
Now do the same for genociders and their supporters. Lets get back to standing against facsism too.
Bernhard putting himself against the wall
awful lot a clanker cock sucking in here.
TIL, developing nuclear weapons is only 20 years in prison.
Detonation is another ten.
So you’re saying I could get out before my retirement?
Ikr, I chose the wrong profession
Bernie falling for the trap. The AI companies want regulatory capture. They have NO moat otherwise.
If those comps are breaking laws, they need to be prosecuted for that. We don’t need new laws that can be exploited by the billionaires.
Yeah in my view (not US but applies regardless of country) the better thing would be to beef up court capacity then start prosecuting the absolute buggery out of anyone who uses, or negligently allows, a model under their control to commit crimes.
If you’re the master of a ship, your responsibility doesn’t end when you set the autohelm. Same with models in my view.
This is nice and everything, but this whole thing is just a huge marketing push by AI companies. AI is not going to kill us. At least not directly (see point 2).
-
You need prohibitively expensive equipment to host AI. That equipment needs to be plugged in. If it were truly dangerous, you just need to unplug it.
-
You need a lot of water to cool the equipment that can run a supposed super intelligence. If we pass regulations about how much of our environment these data centers can destroy, that would curb the abilities of this superintelligence.
-
AI is fucking dumb. AI is a misnomer since it doesn’t actually have any intelligence. It is derivative and cannot perform any necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence. For example, it will be able to tell you every established law in any field of science because it has that information in its corpus, but it will never be able to establish a new law. Or discover anything new in any field.
This whole thing is a push to get people to believe that AI is more capable than it really is so that these companies can draw more money from investors so that 'they’d be able to implement proper safeguards."
This is pretty naive. Distributing computing has existed since forever. It would run significantly more slowly, but there is nothing theoretically stopping the “LLM broke out of containment and moved itself elsewhere” boogie man from becoming a reality. The available exploitable compute from unsecured IoT devices is pretty substantial as things like the Mirai botnet have shown. While this isn’t the most easily distributed problem, there is no fundamental issue here. [Edit: it also wouldn’t need to “exfiltrate itself” to cause persistent harm. Could easily just install malware on infected hosts]
AI isn’t “dumb” in a practical real world sense. LLMs have shown themselves capable of exploitation on the open Internet and of finding zero day vulnerabilities. Do you have any idea how much of our critical infrastructure can be reachable by some sort of network? LLMs have shown themselves capable of manipulating people via speech. None of this requires some sort of “super intelligence” and it doesn’t even require some sort of provable intelligence: it’s all quite possible as things currently stand right now.
These may not be “the entire future is over” level issues, but there is significant risk here and it shouldn’t be ignored just because we think AI companies are horrible. Is an LLM going to make us all batteries or paper clips? No, but it could cause significant physical and/or economic harm temporarily.
Accepting that you are right on all 3 points, the supercharged push of AI is destroying the country (and the world) by itself. Prices are sky high, AI is being prioritized with regards to water rather than actual humans, and the results are plateauing relative to the resources expended. We won’t get an obvious negative outcome, it’s more insidious and systemic which is just as dangerous as Skynet if left unaddressed. So AI is probably not going to kill us in the Terminator Skynet sense, it WILL kill us through economic and water related means.
Having said that, I think Bernie is doing the superintelligence argument (even though it’s probably not the immediate threat) because the people are retarded. The thing that can bring us together are pieces of art like Terminator and so using that as a reference makes it relatable to all the retards rather than giving them a nuanced explanation.
100%. This is Bernie using their own words against them. They keep saying it’s super dangerous guys, incredibly powerful… And Bernie is turning around and using that narrative to help slow the AI bubble.
Sounds good to me.
Anyone who thinks Bernie ‘fell for it’ is missing the point.
This is my feelings exactly. I don’t believe in the doomsday sky net horseshit that the AI companies/whistleblowers are peddling, but taking a strong stance against AI right now is incredibly based. Use the flimsy arguments of AI tech bros to hold them to account.
Agreed
You can cool shit with air. You don’t need water
Not really, not this hyperscaling bullshit they made.
Point 2 isn’t really true, closed loop systems exist and are becoming the standard.
Point 3 is just obviously false? https://techjournal.org/openai-astra-solves-open-math-problems
you have a point about closed loop systems when it comes to consumer models. But a superintelligence quickly runs into the limits of physics and cooling becomes the bottleneck.
Point 3, yeah, lemmy people are just ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand.
Superintelligence may be more about pushing efficiency rather than what you’re saying, i’m sure they can rapidly iterate on making more efficient models.
Data centers use evaporative cooling, not closed loop. You can’t really scale up in a closed loop system. Evaporative utilizes a ton of water.
As for point 3, supercomputers have been assisting with scientific problems for decades now. This isn’t new, just new tech applied. Your article is actually the best way to use AI, imo. It will be better at finding patterns in data than humans will ever be.
But my point is to say would it have been able to discover that those math problems existed in the first place?
No. The answer is no.
Yes you can obviously use a closed loop system and scale up? it’s even becoming the standard? https://datacentremagazine.com/news/how-closed-loop-cooling-is-reshaping-data-centre-design
That is a massive goalpost shift. You went from can’t do anything useful to couldn’t have discovered the problems in one step?
Why does it even matter if it can’t discover the problems if it can solve them, exactly? And why could it solve the problems and not discover new ones?
Closed loop isn’t viable for data centers.
Do me a favor and quote my original text where I said they can’t do anything useful. I’ll wait.
Closed loop isn’t cheaper for data centers.
Ftfy. If it’s a penny more, which it is, corporations will do the less responsible “beholden to the shareholders” bullshit every time.
It is derivative and cannot perform any necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence
done.
also, the closed loop point is just false read my article?
How do you get “it isn’t useful” out of that? If you have to extract a wild interpretation out of what (I thought) were pretty clear words, your argument isn’t as strong as you think it is.
And yes, I read the article. It’s speculative for existing data centers, which are the problem. There’s no incentive for them to spend the money to switch to closed loop.
New data centers aren’t incentivized to go that route either aside from the environmental impact. It would be nice if they were, though.
It can perform necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence and isn’t derivative. See: those proofs.
You’re essentially arguing that it’s useless and just moves data around, this isn’t true.
You’re a little too caught up on that specific wording.
Moat likely, but I would prefer “better safe than sorry” approach
Reactionary legislation is not safe, and often quite destructive.
-
So… Let china win the AI race so the bubble explodes and USA bankrupts.
“Race” implies there’s a finish line. The tech won’t get to a point where the additional value a worker can produce when using it outweighs the additional cost of having the worker use it. (And keep in mind, according to some estimates, said additional value is 0). And LLMs won’t get to a point where they’re actually intelligent. The “I” part of “AI” is a not something we can reach with our current technology. In fact, we can’t currently define what intelligence even is.
Or… Let China continue unabated so they can implode and the USA skyrockets.
The US is bankrupt regardless
I’m sure Bernie has good intentions but this is exactly what Altman and Amodei want and why they’re constantly shouting how dangerous AI is.
Any AI startup can then be labeled as developing artificial superintelligence. Not them though, they’re working together with the government.
I get your point, but I also argue “no it’s not.” The AI bros want to lie about how their super-special autocomplete is the most dangerous of all without any consequences. Good luck getting any employees to willingly substantiate your claims when 20 years in prison is on the line.
Even better, if they try to hack another company and claim their AI did it on its own, they get treated like a private company who decided to perform an unsanctioned nuclear test.
Make it dangerous for them to claim they’re dangerous.
Plus OpenAI’s IPO has been delayed due to the hype not being favorable enough, so it’s time to put on the brakes so that AGI can remain just around the corner for a little while longer.
That said, I do think Bernie’s idea of making the public voting stakeholders in AI companies is interesting. Existential threats notwithstanding, AI is having a significant impact in a lot of ways and the public interest should be represented. Though in practice I doubt that you’ll get the entire public voting in any meaningful direction so that 50% might not make any effective change.
If AI is so dangerous it needs to be immediately banned. The only allowed usage (If any) is research and it is heavily restricted, with heavy oversight from multiple governments. Otherwise its just bullshit
It is not. They are spouting this lie and prompting their models to go rogue because they want to be the only trusted company that can “handle them”. It’s all about control and creating a monopoly.
I believe there is truth in both sides of this argument.
Yeah but neither of those sides are in favor of the regulatory capture monopoly that liberals always think is a good idea.
That has about as much to do with reality as me believing I sing well in the shower.
Thankfully it’s not so dangerous
This is such a wild take to be getting this many upvotes. If nothing happened in LLM development from this day forward they’d still be absurdly dangerous: both in an information security context and a social engineering context.
Lemmy is absolutely head in the sand about LLMs and it is wild. You can dislike LLMs and acknowledge their capabilities [and limitations] at the same time.
I wouldn’t say that, the amount of vulnerabilities it’s discovering (and capable of exploiting) is frightening
I’m down with that.
Not them though, they’re working together with the government.
Isn’t there a law for them who plan and prepare to grab the power? I mean, that’s what this Altman is doing all the time. Has been doing for at least 2 years now.
I wouldn’t be sure he has any good intentions.
Trump wants no AI regulation.
This is just the opposite of that which is what usually works for opposition politicians.
this will only hurt the us further, many will simply build outside of america.
Fine, let them waste money and effort on garbage.
So what? What good has having AI “built” in the US done us?
Sad to see Bernie buy in to the AI hype. LLMs are not intelligent, they aren’t anything approximating intelligent, and feeding them more data will never make them “wake up.”
He’s 100 years old.
I can’t say whether he has bought in or not, but this could be useful toward the end of curtailing some of the most damaging economic ambitions, so long as it is applied across the board without “trusted established players” somehow being given a pass.
So it could him buying it at face value, and frankly who can blame him. Trying to discern reality from hype is tricky in this scenario, especially for a politician.
However whether the scenario is substantitve or simply everyone is spending and building and planning as if it were substantive, his reaction is equally useful, as slowing our roll is important in either case.
His style of ‘buy-in’ wouldn’t be as risky as the more pro-AI buy-in, like Trump.
I would say the use of the word “superintelligence” suggests he is buying into the hype, and is something “AI” companies will point at to say “See? Even our critics agree that AGI is on the way. Do you want to risk someone else making it first? Give us money and freedom from regulation or something something China.”
The reality is that LLMs are not even something that can be used as an actual foundation for intelligence, and the problems with “AI” are just the next iteration of the owner class trying to use technology to fuck over the working class. The problems are economic and climate-related, and the best way to mitigate them is a realistic assessment of how much this technology is actually worth.
Just saying that if I thought it could work, I might be inclined to use ASI as a bogeyman to induce people to actually do something to reign in this mess, even if I didn’t believe it. Not saying that Bernie consciously employs this strategy, but it’s a possibility.
Fair point about such a strategy potentially backfiring if it doesn’t work fully, then the risk of ‘the other guy’ becomes a risk of making everything even worse.
85-year old senators are not well known for their tech-literacy. If he has people around him just repeating the same narratives that we hear from the media and everyone else then he will have absolutely bought in to the hype.
Still crazy people get the same charge for driving around with some plants…
There’s a lot of shit we need to fix, but our justice system is a big one.
20 years should be the plea deal if they fess up and snitch on everyone else, not the max were seeking. The damage a wealthy person can do is astronomical. So we need to start sentencing them appropriately.
Life should be the minimum were seeking, even just causing power loss where they build a data center has killed people already. Wanton reckless endangerment resulting in death is a big deal even if you’re a billionaire, I’d say it’s a bigger deal because a billionaire has zero financial stress.
They can literally afford to take time and be careful, if they don’t then fuck em
If the US would fix its tax system, such that the wealthy paid 90% after a certain amount again (as they did under Eisenhower) without all these loopholes, the wealthy wouldn’t be so dangerous.
They could easily be rendered toothless before even worrying about how much time they deserve behind bars (which is still a lot).
If you look back, essentially no one ever paid those high tax rates, so your solution would do nothing.
“They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
I would label the “they” as human beings, rather than this country or that.
Wait… It’s only 20 years for illegally developing nuclear weapons?
Yes, developing is notably different than possessing, using, selling, purchasing, or the attempt to do any of those things.
He knows it has a snowball’s chance. He’s just using his platform to call attention to a potentially serious problem in a way that grabs headlines. He has to shout pretty loudly to get anyone’s attention nowadays.
Note that even if the ASI problem isn’t realistically a threat, either way the AI companies are absolutely a serious problem, not merely potentially. For most folks, half their retirement is at this point at the whims of a handful of AI tech bros. Putting aside all arguments about ASI, that alone is something worthy of putting some control over them.
deleted by creator
is CEO a dev
Share holders
Abolish the corporate veil
is CEO a dev
Automatically conspicuous.
