“Dangerous technology should not be open source, regardless of whether it is bio-weapons or software,” Tegmark said.
What a stupid alarmist take. The safest way for technology to operate is when people can see how it works, allowing experts who don’t just have a financial interest in it succeeding to scrutinize it openly. And it’s not like this is some magical technology that only massive corporations have access to in the first place, it’s built on top of open research.
Home Depot sells all the ingredients you need to make a substantial bomb, should we ban fertilizer and pressure cookers for non-industrial use?
lily33@lemm.ee 1 year ago
So, the actionable suggestions here are: reduce competition, ban open source. I guess what this article is really about, is using fear to make sure AI remains in the hands of a few…
thehatfox@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes, this the setup for regulatory capture before regulation has even been conceived. The likes of OpenAI would like nothing more than to be legally declared the only stewards of this “dangerous” technology. The constant doom laden hype that people keep falling for is all part of the plan.
lily33@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I think calling it “dangerous” in quotes is a bit disingenuous - because there is real potential for danger in the future - but what this article wants is totally not the way to manage that.
Heresy_generator@kbin.social 1 year ago
It's also about distraction. The whole point of the letter and the campaign behind it is slight-of-hand; to get the media obsessing over hypothetical concerns about hypothetical future AIs rather than talking about the actual concerns around current LLMs. They don't want the media talking about the danger of deepfaked videos, floods of generated disinformation, floods of generated scams, deepfaked audio scams, and on and on, so they dangle Skynet in front of them and watch the media gladly obsess over our Terminator-themed future because that's more exciting and generates more clicks than talking about the flood of fake news that is going to dominate every democratic election in the world from now on.
photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
But… shouldn’t it? I mean, if everyone had a nuke, the world would look a whole lot different
lily33@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Since I don’t think this analogy works, you’re going to have to explain how the world would look like if everyone had access to AI technology advanced enough to be comparable to a nuke, vs how it would look like if only a small elite has access to it.
Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
You can google how to make a nuke. Of course, you’re gonna get your hands on the plutonium, which is something even countries struggle with.
Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
That’s exactly what it is.