This is the central problem with the dismissals of the tech's capability. Public discourse needs to shift to planning for the economic impact in particular, but the kind of High Brazilism from the naysayers who insist it's a proof of psychosis to even mention AI's potential, makes the inertia in policymakers much easier for them to maintain. Waiting for the financial effects to arrive and then improvising policy is the stupidest way of handling an upheaval on this scale - even if the precise form of those shocks can't be anticipated.
reply> There is no possible universe where AI is banned
replyYes there is
It's just a whole lot more violent than you're imagining
No, there isn't. At this point you would have to wipe out humanity to get rid of AI.
replyAnd then hope nothing else ever evolves intelligence.
You'd have to wipe out, like, at MOST about ten executives and star engineers.
replyWhy do you imagine this would change _anything_?
replyThere's a voluminous amount of code and documentation on how to build and run LLMs. You can build your own chatgpt literally in a weekend and run it on a home server, based on publicly available models.
If OpenAI and Anthropic literally evaporated overnight, there would still be Chinese labs training and releasing new models.
Well then the Chinese labs need to evaporate too
replyDo you think that's going to erase every copy of "Attention is all you need"?
replyWe don't have to get rid of AI entirely to reverse this trend
replySociety is just 3 meals away from going that route
replyI'm sorry - but you're not going to ban AI no more than you can ban the transistor. You could limit & limit the potential of who uses it - but historically that seems to benefit the few rather than the many.
reply> you can organize politically
replyCan you? Maybe if you can afford an AI powered social media bot farm. What a great technology.