undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbeachy2y ago0 comments

> I think they want to be shepherding responsible AGI before someone else does so irresponsibly.

Is this a thing? This would be like Switzerland in WWII doing nuclear weapons research to try and get there before the Nazis.

Would that make any difference whatsoever to the Nazis timeframe? No.

I fail to see how the presence of "ethical" AI researchers would slow down in the slightest the bad actors who are certainly out there.

0 comments

alienbeast2y ago

Having nukes protects you from other nuclear powers through mutually-assured destruction. I'm not sure whether that principle applies to AGI, though.

quickthrower22y ago

They can’t stop another country developing AI they are not fond of.

They can use their position to lobby their own government and maybe other governments to introduce laws to govern AI.

FormerBandmate2y ago

America did nuclear weapons research to get there before the Nazis and Japan and we were able to use them to stop Japan

mikrl2y ago

Has the US ever stated or followed a policy of neutrality and openness?

OpenAI positioned itself like that, much the same way Switzerland does in global politics.

Jare2y ago

Openness sure, but neutrality? I thought they had always been very explicitly positioned on the "ethical AGI" side.

dragonwriter2y ago

> Has the US ever stated or followed a policy of neutrality

Yes, most of the time from the founding until the First World War.

> and openness?

Not sure what sense of "openness" is relevant here.

3 more replies

vanrysss2y ago

So the first AGI is going to be used to kill other AGIs in the cradle ?

T-A2y ago

The scenario usually bandied about is AGI self-improving at an accelerating rate: once you cross the threshold to self-improvement, you quickly get superintelligence with God-like powers beyond human comprehension (a.k.a. the Singularity) as AGI v1 creates a faster AGI v2 which creates a faster AGI v3 etc.

Any AI researchers still plodding along at mere human speed are then doomed: they won't be able to catch up even if they manage to reproduce the original breakthrough, since the head start enjoyed by AGI #1 guarantees that its latest iteration is always further along the exponential self-improvement curve and therefore superior to any would-be competitor. Being rational(ists), they give up and welcome their new AI overlord.

And if not, the AI god will surely make them see the error of their ways.

2 more replies

kbenson2y ago

Or contain, or counter, or be used as a deterrent. At least, I think that's the idea being espoused here (in general, if not in the GP comment).

I think U. S. VS Japan is not.necessarily the right model to be thinking here, but U.S. VS U.S.S.R., where we'd like to believe that neither nation would actually launch against the other, but both having the weapon meant they couldn't without risking severe damage in response making it a losing proposition.

That said, I'm sure anyone with an AGI in their pocket/on their side will attempt to use it as a big stick against those that don't, in the Teddy Roosevelt meaning.

username3322112y ago

I think that was part of the LessWrong eschatology.

It doesn't make sense with modern AI, where improvement (be it learning or model expansion) is separated from it's normal operation, but I guess some beliefs can persevere very well.

1 more reply

macintux2y ago

Which reminds me, I really need to finish Person of Interest someday.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse