> bioweapons convention was successful
replyWas it successful? The jury is still out.
The point I would make: there are historical examples of international cooperation that work at least for some lengths of time. This is a good thing, a good tool to strive for, albeit difficult to reach.
replyBecause bioweapons suck, this is why. On the other hand AI sucks too, but it has at least some use
replyThere might be a small percentage of people nihilistic enough to want to unleash a truly devastating bioweapon, but basically everyone wants what AI has to offer.
replyI think that's a key difference as well.
And how would a treaty like that be enforced? Every country has legitimate uses for GPUs, to make a rendering farm or simulations or do anything else involving matrix operations.
All of the technology involved, in more or less the configuration needed to make your own ChatGPT, is dual use.
because bio-weapons labs take more to run than a workstation pc under your desk with a good graphics card. both in equipment material and training. Its hard to outlaw use of linear algebra and matrix multiplications.
replyThe last part of your post doesn’t necessarily follow or support your argument; the corollary is “It’s hard to outlaw rna”.
replyDon't compare general intelligence to bioweapons. A bioweapon cannot defend against or reverse the effects of another bioweapon.
replyI don’t see why you think that AGI can reverse the effects of another AGI?
replySee this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189130
reply