The Cold War was the best possible outcome. The alternatives (super power hot war, nuclear armageddon) did not happen. Nuclear weapon potential was a large part of that, as was direct lines of communication. Unfortunately because the later is no longer a thing, and our president declined to extend the existing agreement (a problematic pattern), we now again face proliferation of nuclear weapons.

This is not mathematical logic. Of course you can't prove the causality of anything in history. The only way to do that would be to invent a time machine, delete the nukes and watch things play out.

There are direct quotes from Nixon and Reagan that claims this to be true. That is enough evidence for me.

> Fact: There was no world war.

Akshually there is, and WW3 has been going on since 2010. (Mostly in places that aren't Europe.)

That's been a posited theory for decades - it's not just some HN edgelord thing. There are some obvious problems with it of course and the P5 have instead taken a maximalist attitude towards keeping the genie in the bottle (notwithstanding Atoms for Peace and accommodating India/Pakistan when it became inevitable).

The 80 years thing actually happened. One can argue about MAD and the nuclear threat, but we don't have to guess at what happened.

It worked.

- Ukrainians, definitely.

The problem is that at the business level and at least for a large part of the US government, we need to assume that there are no 'good' actors.

Anthropic needs regulation in order to prevent AI from becoming a commodity. This of course does not benefit all tech businesses equally, especially those that are not currently at the AI frontier. So when JD Vance talks about AI, he talks using the mouth of Peter Thiel who may not see benefit from the same policy as Altman or Amodei.

The rest is just public support posturing and most of that is bullshit meant to distract from the high rollers game of winners and losers. The philosophy is money and power, who gets it and who doesn't. Us normies aren't really participants in the game, except where we are being manipulated into cheering for one side or another, and with little stake in the outcomes (although selfishly, I'd be pissed if I didn't have open models to tinker with).

Open source is fundamentally a vehicle for commoditization. This is great if your business is not AI and your business is instead something like GPU hardware or some product that uses AI. But it means that eventually, selling AI is not going to be the money maker.

OSI proliferated open source on a business strategy called "commoditizing your complements". These big companies don't do it out of benevolence. It was pitched to them in a way that FSF did not (which was more about morals and ethics, something business care little about), and it caught on. And the software business became about ads, consulting and cloud services instead.

May I suggest 1984 for some fantastic examples of this?

Also, Democratic Republic of {Congo, Korea}.

This confuses me to no end as well. The socialists are fighting against the magic socialism machine.

The US companies talking about “pacing” aren't actually talking about slowing down their own development efforts, they are talking about slowing down competition. That is, specifically, they are seeking to have government, on the pretext of “safety”:

(1) Give the big AI incumbents an anti-trust exemption so the they can coordinate without it being an illegal agreement not to compete, and

(2) Adopt mandatory supervision (by giving priveleged access to monitors) to the shared safety protocols of the big labs, by a nonprofit funded by the big labs, of everyone training, distributing, or hosting models.

(3) Adopt a policy of seeking international agreements to extend substantially the same rules to foreign actors training, distributing, and hosting models.

The part they are doing voluntarily isn't to promote the lobbying effort for these mandates isn't slowing down, it is giving their pet nonprofit the access for “independwht supervision” of their own operations to their own existing safety rules.

There is no moat with this stuff. There's no reason to be concerned about being leapfrogged.

is just PR nonsense.

Closing the Barndoor after the livestock have escaped

And yet we all have failed to die so far from nuclear holocaust, despite Russia being our dire enemy, because of a system of agreed controls and limits between even nations that hate each other.

[dead]

> It is absolutely explained (for those who actually care about reading). Simply put, AIs are working more and more like blackboxes - there's no guarantee that an AI of the future will be aligned, or if it will be faking alignment. This is not speculation - alignment faking has been observed in experiments. This is exactly why Astra's developments have been worrying (in principle).

I know you think you explained it but you didn't. You explained how an LLM might become misaligned and hide it but for the LLMs that are not, why would they not be capable of detecting that something harmful is happening and defending against the misaligned LLMs actions? After all, it was LLMs that defended hugging face.

>Unaligned bombs didn't break out of their confines on their own.

You really buy that ridiculous argument that "the AI broke out of its sandbox! We had no idea! It's dangerous I tell you, dangerous! Unless you make us the sole gatekeepers of this incredibly dangerous 'intelligence', everybody gonna die!"

Please.

Bring the CFAA[0] hammer down on these guys and watch how fast those "uncontrollable" LLMs get controlled. "Oh, gee! Prison? We can't control this stuff...but it'll never happen again!"

That whole thing was, and is, a bunch of hooey. Those running the LLMs are entirely responsible for them, there is no such thing as agency for algorithms. Full stop.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act