Rendered at 15:19:31 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
yesco 19 hours ago [-]
Tech leaders demand nations of the world give them a moat or else
impossiblefork 18 hours ago [-]
It's a really strange decision to choose the security council as the forum, given its purpose.
I think the reasonable thing would have been to let some sort of committee of interested countries to have access to a bunch of relevant. It could still be public and in video form.
I like the call for ensuring that AI isn't concentrated in one company or country though. I would be happy if this were followed, with appropriate EU efforts to make good training accelerators etc. so that we could have our own reasonable 10T+ models.
I've poo-pooed the bio stuff earlier, but I think I agree with the threat to some degree, but I still absolutely hate the idea of central control of models, probably because it's still central control.
ChrisArchitect 19 hours ago [-]
Related video:
Sam Altman’s remarks at the United Nations Security Council
Alt title from source: Heads of AI firms tell UN Security Council that it could imperil humanity
watwut 18 hours ago [-]
I mean ... just stop shipping and building it if it is so dangerous. Easy peasy. Perfectly doable by literally you.
soraminazuki 4 hours ago [-]
These companies are hammering on the "if we don't develop this super dangerous weapon, others will" BS so hard. Yet, it's telling that they continue to develop the supposedly fatal weapon, not its countermeasures.
no-name-here 18 hours ago [-]
Is your idea that other groups (who have stated less concerned with AI safety) would stop their own AI efforts of those concerned with AI safety stopped?
I guess the parallel to a different industry would be like if some companies called for food safety laws because they think unregulated food is unsafe, and people said “Well those companies who think unregulated food is unsafe can just stop selling food anytime they want, easy peasy”?
watwut 5 hours ago [-]
The other groups don't randomly hack everyone around. The other groups are less gung-ho into pushing ai everywhere, whether it works for that use case or not.
In here, I am specifically saying "the specific companies that are producing the unsafe products should stop". That is what people said about food safety too. You are the one poisoning people, you should stop. And crucially, the companies least capable to produce safe food should not be the ones writing the regulations. Their close friends is "independent" organizations should not be the ones writing them either.
Also, effective food safety regulations are about accountability - you poison people, you have to pay. In case of AI, your AI hacks, you are deemed responsible. You pay the fine, you are prosecuted for negligence.
no-name-here 2 hours ago [-]
1. Are you claiming the other models have not been used for hacking? Or merely that only the big US labs are actually reporting when their models are using for hacking?
2. Wouldn't that big like only 2 food companies releasing reports when their food makes people sick, then claiming that it's only those 2 companies with bad food, and that all the companies that don't report then their food makes people sick... that those companies don't make people sick? Like if only McDonalds and KFC released reports when their food make people sick, and all the other companies, would you similarly claim that the other companies' food doesn't make people sick?
3.
> In case of AI, your AI hacks, you are deemed responsible. You pay the fine, you are prosecuted
Do you actually believe that is true? I'd say the opposite has been shown to be true - even when it's not a case of "operator gave non-malicious instructions, system acted maliciously" -- i.e. the real-life cases of all of the many government-run and private hacking groups globally for years - do those government-run and private hacking groups actually face consequences for their actions? Or what makes you think things will suddenly change now in terms of consequences?
4. Also, do you think the amount of hacking done with the big frontier models is remotely as significant (either in terms of quantity or how much damage is done) as the amount done with the others?
I think the reasonable thing would have been to let some sort of committee of interested countries to have access to a bunch of relevant. It could still be public and in video form.
I like the call for ensuring that AI isn't concentrated in one company or country though. I would be happy if this were followed, with appropriate EU efforts to make good training accelerators etc. so that we could have our own reasonable 10T+ models.
I've poo-pooed the bio stuff earlier, but I think I agree with the threat to some degree, but I still absolutely hate the idea of central control of models, probably because it's still central control.
Sam Altman’s remarks at the United Nations Security Council
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHiLFoqNUCg&t=772s (https://openai.com/index/sam-altman-un-security-council-rema...)
Anthropic's Dario Amodei
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHiLFoqNUCg&t=1335s
I guess the parallel to a different industry would be like if some companies called for food safety laws because they think unregulated food is unsafe, and people said “Well those companies who think unregulated food is unsafe can just stop selling food anytime they want, easy peasy”?
In here, I am specifically saying "the specific companies that are producing the unsafe products should stop". That is what people said about food safety too. You are the one poisoning people, you should stop. And crucially, the companies least capable to produce safe food should not be the ones writing the regulations. Their close friends is "independent" organizations should not be the ones writing them either.
Also, effective food safety regulations are about accountability - you poison people, you have to pay. In case of AI, your AI hacks, you are deemed responsible. You pay the fine, you are prosecuted for negligence.
2. Wouldn't that big like only 2 food companies releasing reports when their food makes people sick, then claiming that it's only those 2 companies with bad food, and that all the companies that don't report then their food makes people sick... that those companies don't make people sick? Like if only McDonalds and KFC released reports when their food make people sick, and all the other companies, would you similarly claim that the other companies' food doesn't make people sick?
3.
> In case of AI, your AI hacks, you are deemed responsible. You pay the fine, you are prosecuted
Do you actually believe that is true? I'd say the opposite has been shown to be true - even when it's not a case of "operator gave non-malicious instructions, system acted maliciously" -- i.e. the real-life cases of all of the many government-run and private hacking groups globally for years - do those government-run and private hacking groups actually face consequences for their actions? Or what makes you think things will suddenly change now in terms of consequences?
4. Also, do you think the amount of hacking done with the big frontier models is remotely as significant (either in terms of quantity or how much damage is done) as the amount done with the others?