Maybe "It's really hard" is more accurate? We (humanity) for most part basically agreed to ban the usage of various chemical weapons in wartime, which seems to have drastically reduced the usage of it, even though it's still used by shit actors today from time to time. But it's hard to deny that usage didn't decrease after banning it, which makes "banning" maybe not completely useless for certain things.
"Banning" things that can be easily copied over cyberweb transportation pipes feels like an fool's errand though, regardless of what it is. It's just too easy to get around, compared to actual physical items I suppose.
Regardless of whether or not adversaries are using them, the US has by far the most compute available, and we've now hit the line where major providers are no longer releasing their best models. The public gets the "current" level of intelligence, while the US government gets to control access to the actual frontier of non-public AI. From their perspective, their enemies using GLM5.3 while they have GPT6 and Mythos6 or whatever is a fine trade.
I don't support a ban at all, nor the US's behavior, I'm just pointing out some facts that change the argument.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...
>This kind of thing works when you have a significant lead in the field
No? It works even if the adversary has the same capabilities. It only stops working when everything is fixed.
I'm curious: to any professional vulnerability researchers reading this, what do you think?
Now i know that reality is worse than the worst conspiracy theorist.
It might not be the reason, but of course it's a contributing factor.
So we might ask if one of the reasons the US is being the bad guy is it's usual spying antics, and we're left asking why China is being the good guy.
Why do you _not_ believe it's a possibility?