@carramrod no not representing that at all. If there’s a 1 percent chance of annihilating us I’d legislate the end to it and start threatening China and Russia to do same.
but I don’t know. It’s above my pay grade
See I find that very reasonable. I was responding to you writing this:@bradstevens Do I think the Titan submersible guy lied when he said his submersible was safe? I think he genuinely believed it was; he just wasn't competent to assess its safety. I would argue Musk can have similar blind spots. Hell, we all do. But some of us are better at realizing we are human and prone to mistakes than others. So if Musk, not an expert, feels something is not safe I do think he is quite capable of blowing off contrary information.
Musk is certain we will have a self-sufficient settlement on Mars by 2055. Read "A City on Mars"; the massive things we have to overcome to have a settlement on Mars are enormous. Let alone self-sufficiency. We have many problems we have no idea how to solve. And none of that touches on the unknown unknowns. There is a great quote in the book, "The typical behavior of a non-Earth planet encountering a human is to cook it, freeze it, or crush it."
“not just trying to get richer no matter the cost. “
You want safety, deregulate.
Why do you think we have regulations, everything was perfect before regulations? Go and read the muckraker stuff from pre-government regulation days. Just throw rats into ground meat, makes more money. Don't put nearly enough lifeboats on the Titanic, they just cost money. Let's lock exits at the Shirtwaist factory to stop breaks and theft, what could go wrong.
Was listening to a thing on NPR about how the human species is currently on track to peak in population in a few decades and then begin to actually shrink. I've always been of the opinion that human progress has pretty much always been driven by population growth. That a humanity of a stable population would stagnate, and one of a shrinking population would inevitably decline. But maybe AI taking over could actually be our salvation. Maybe we shouldn't worry about the end of jobs as much as celebrate the end of the need for jobs, so that our future shrinking population can devote its time to those things that progress our society, rather than those many mundane tasks that merely sustain it.
@carramrod Boeing loved penny pinching everything. Why is it so impossible to believe that causes problems
I loved a Clarkson line in the old Top Gear. He was in a Corvette and said, "Hear that rattle? That is the sound of 1000 parts all built by the lowest bidder."
Whatever laws we have didn't make Boeing put safety over profit.
https://twitter.com/antifascapegoat/status/2098822177042657533?s=46
I'm going with they are bleeding money and want to write the rules so they can maintain a monopoly.
See I find that very reasonable. I was responding to you writing this:@bradstevens ."
“not just trying to get richer no matter the cost. “
I was reading Cannibals All, you can find the pdf online. It is a noted Virginian arguing for slavery in 1852 or so. It is a paradigm shifting book. In spots he is ful bore communist. Of course communism didn't exist. He would argue that there is no such thing as freedom, once man banded together man gave up freedom. Solitaire hunting animals are free. Animals that need the group to live are not.
But the tie in, he argues slaves are more free. If a slave loses an arm and can no longer work, the owner has the obligation to find them jobs on the farm they can do. His argument is the wage slaves in the north (his words) were fired in such situations with no concern if they can survive.
Now I think we are past that phase (and he was relatively accurate, a lot of workers died or were maimed in that era with no recourse). So it is better, some governmental laws being part of that. I really have no idea about Musk, but we can be safe in suggesting there are corporatists who don't give their employees a second thought.
To be fair, their employees probably don't give them a second thought. But the power structure means the employees are harmed more by that combination.
The book was fascinating, and I have learned a lot about the slavery debate. Some of what happened has eerie similarities to today.
@carramrod no not representing that at all. If there’s a 1 percent chance of annihilating us I’d legislate the end to it and start threatening China and Russia to do same.
but I don’t know. It’s above my pay grade
China isn't going to slow down. Would we have been better off to slowdown during WWll and let Germany or Japan develop nuclear weapons first? If AI is as dangerous as people claim the only thing that will save us from China's AI is our own. The argument for regulation is weak, besides wanting to create monopolies and allow government to set what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.
@snarlcakes I haven’t heard a compelling counter-argument to the China question. I don’t like to use the argument because I believe the promise and benefits of AI can, and do, stand on their own without getting into the geopolitical.
More than anything I’m troubled by the inclination to fear of the future over the desire to capture it. It strikes me as fundamentally un-American.
China isn't going to slow down. Would we have been better off to slowdown during WWll and let Germany or Japan develop nuclear weapons first? If AI is as dangerous as people claim the only thing that will save us from China's AI is our own. The argument for regulation is weak, besides wanting to create monopolies and allow government to set what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.
A person lives in a rough neighborhood and decides they need a gun for safety. They have never touched a gun, and aren't always careful about how they do things. Is it safer for that person to buy a gun, have the seller load it, and tuck it under their belt than to not have a gun.
@snarlcakes I haven’t heard a compelling counter-argument to the China question. I don’t like to use the argument because I believe the promise and benefits of AI can, and do, stand on their own without getting into the geopolitical.
More than anything I’m troubled by the inclination to fear of the future over the desire to capture it. It strikes me as fundamentally un-American.
I agree. I was just using the China argument to show how illogical their arguments for regulations are based on safety concerns. If they're really that scared we need to move faster, not slower.
Anyhoo, I was listening to a podcast and the guy made the point how overvalued (or how hard it's going to become to value them) companies are now because of the speed that AI is moving. Companies are investing 100s of billions and how will they recoup their investments if a start comes along and passes them in 12-24 months? The calls for regulations made me think it and perhaps the companies know that as well and want/need to slow down the competition.
China isn't going to slow down. Would we have been better off to slowdown during WWll and let Germany or Japan develop nuclear weapons first? If AI is as dangerous as people claim the only thing that will save us from China's AI is our own. The argument for regulation is weak, besides wanting to create monopolies and allow government to set what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.
A person lives in a rough neighborhood and decides they need a gun for safety. They have never touched a gun, and aren't always careful about how they do things. Is it safer for that person to buy a gun, have the seller load it, and tuck it under their belt than to not have a gun.
The world is moving forward. If we choose to handcuff ourselves doesn't mean China or the rest of the world will do it. Europe chose that route when it comes to Climate Change and has been a disaster.
China isn't going to slow down. Would we have been better off to slowdown during WWll and let Germany or Japan develop nuclear weapons first? If AI is as dangerous as people claim the only thing that will save us from China's AI is our own. The argument for regulation is weak, besides wanting to create monopolies and allow government to set what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.
A person lives in a rough neighborhood and decides they need a gun for safety. They have never touched a gun, and aren't always careful about how they do things. Is it safer for that person to buy a gun, have the seller load it, and tuck it under their belt than to not have a gun.
I’m losing my patience with the simplistic metaphors and analogies Marv.
You need to start giving a clear stance on how you feel we should manage AI.
Boeing shows there’s danger, but also Boeing is an example of regulatory failure. We need to regulate more, no less. Actually punish the CEO’s, but we can’t prove guilt.
All I can glean from our conversation is your nervous and you don’t really know what to do about it.
@carramrod you’re nervous and don’t know what to do about it likely captures all of us but a handful in the space
@carramrod you’re nervous and don’t know what to do about it likely captures all of us but a handful in the space
I say we start by dropping the pretense that we’re the first people that ever lived and that somehow OUR era of innovation comes with danger and complexity far outpacing all others.
It’s arrogant and stupid.
1000 years from now people are not going to look back at our moment say
“Yup that’s really when it all changed”
Because technological innovation is iterative. There is no AI without the internet, there is no internet without the computer, there is no computer without the space program, there is no space program without the engine and automobile.
At each of those moments many people thought
“well we’ve really done it this time, just what will this unleash?”
Don’t be on the scared side of history.
@carramrod I think the germane bit is that this is innovation that can operate independently from us. That’s what makes it historically unique to entertain your assertion
acting by its own volition is a matter of first impression- comparatively