Ah, yes, “when used responsibly.” Like how we use drugs, alcohol, guns, cars, money, power, and everything else responsibly? Humans can’t be trusted with things that do more harm than good when used irresponsibly.
Every country that has legalized or decriminalized drug use and promotes safe and responsible usage with support systems such as addictions counseling and drug purity testing has shown a decrease in drug use and addiction rates and overdose deaths. Whereas the ‘war on drugs’ has been going strong for like 100 years and usage in the US keeps rising, deaths keep growing, addiction rates are skyrocketing… And billions of dollars go to criminal enterprises. AI is so much worse than drugs and while open source models might seem like a friendly weed dealer on the corner they’re actually getting their product from the same monsters and gangsters that are selling crack to schoolchildren (those are the big AI companies).
If the goal was to reduce the amount the average American drank alcohol year over year (and that was the goal) it was an overwhelming success; not only during prohibition but thereafter as well.
Banning stuff and then enforcing the ban works really well and we have tons of evidence of it working; not just in the US but literally world-wide.
This is quite aside from the fact that today we’ve figured out that criminalising drugs and users is the wrong approach and does a lot more harm than good. But we STILL have people like you.
Sorry, I don’t really feel like reading anything from Anthropic atm (I might later, it sounds interesting), but my actual, non-sarcastic position on the matter is fuck LLMs; they should not be doing any sort of policymaking.
Long story short: AI using AI can find ways to run itself on TV set top boxes and similar common IoT devices, as part of a bot-net. It can also find ways to self-propogate such bot-nets across many surprisingly low powered and widely distributed devices in our world.
Correct - knives do more good than harm, even when some people use them irresponsibly. My point is that AI doesn’t; even when some people could arguably say that they use it responsibly and do good work, those that use it for slop, to perpetuate disinformation, and to further degrade our ability to think critically outweigh those people.
There’s an example used in regulatory circles: electricity would never be permitted in homes under today’s regulatory standards - we only accept it and its hazards because it is so incredibly common and useful in daily life and we’ve been accepting it since before we cared so deeply about safety.
So, have today’s goalposts moved so much that “AI” no longer passes modern society’s definitions of acceptable? I feel like such a technology would have been cheerfully embraced in the 1960s.
Ah, yes, “when used responsibly.” Like how we use drugs, alcohol, guns, cars, money, power, and everything else responsibly? Humans can’t be trusted with things that do more harm than good when used irresponsibly.
“Knives cause lots of stabbings, so let’s ban knives”
“Guns cause a lot of shootings, so let’s ban guns”
~ any reasonable country on the planet
Nice try to equating a knife to fucking drugs. AI is even worse than drugs, is like the digital version of nuclear weaponry: it shouldn’t even exist.
Every country that has legalized or decriminalized drug use and promotes safe and responsible usage with support systems such as addictions counseling and drug purity testing has shown a decrease in drug use and addiction rates and overdose deaths. Whereas the ‘war on drugs’ has been going strong for like 100 years and usage in the US keeps rising, deaths keep growing, addiction rates are skyrocketing… And billions of dollars go to criminal enterprises. AI is so much worse than drugs and while open source models might seem like a friendly weed dealer on the corner they’re actually getting their product from the same monsters and gangsters that are selling crack to schoolchildren (those are the big AI companies).
I swear, some people still think Prohibition was a great idea.
I mean, it is how ice cream became so popular… https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/ice-cream-prohibition-era-craze
However, the end of Prohibition was a much better idea than the start of it.
It was.
If the goal was to reduce the amount the average American drank alcohol year over year (and that was the goal) it was an overwhelming success; not only during prohibition but thereafter as well.
Banning stuff and then enforcing the ban works really well and we have tons of evidence of it working; not just in the US but literally world-wide.
You seem to have missed the 1001 negative side effects of Prohibition, that eclipsed the tiny ideological victory of reducing drinking.
https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences
Additionally, there is no consensus on whether Prohibition was even successful at that, owing to a lack of hard data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
This is quite aside from the fact that today we’ve figured out that criminalising drugs and users is the wrong approach and does a lot more harm than good. But we STILL have people like you.
Then just let AI use AI. I’ll collect my Nobel prize now thx.
You might want to rethink that position: https://www.anthropic.com/research/self-replicating-ai
Sorry, I don’t really feel like reading anything from Anthropic atm (I might later, it sounds interesting), but my actual, non-sarcastic position on the matter is fuck LLMs; they should not be doing any sort of policymaking.
Long story short: AI using AI can find ways to run itself on TV set top boxes and similar common IoT devices, as part of a bot-net. It can also find ways to self-propogate such bot-nets across many surprisingly low powered and widely distributed devices in our world.
Some humans cannot own knives responsibility. It doesn’t mean I have to cut the pineapple with a spoon.
Correct - knives do more good than harm, even when some people use them irresponsibly. My point is that AI doesn’t; even when some people could arguably say that they use it responsibly and do good work, those that use it for slop, to perpetuate disinformation, and to further degrade our ability to think critically outweigh those people.
There’s an example used in regulatory circles: electricity would never be permitted in homes under today’s regulatory standards - we only accept it and its hazards because it is so incredibly common and useful in daily life and we’ve been accepting it since before we cared so deeply about safety.
So, have today’s goalposts moved so much that “AI” no longer passes modern society’s definitions of acceptable? I feel like such a technology would have been cheerfully embraced in the 1960s.