upvote
Play that out. How does destroying the company halt the problem?
reply
If the options are to shoot yourself in the face or wait a year or even a month and have someone else shoot you, I think most people would pick the second.

Companies are continuing because they don’t actually believe they are going to have significant negative consequences happen sooner. It’s marketing fluff around how cutting edge what they are doing is not any kind of realistic threat assessment.

reply
I don’t understand why this idea that it’s all just marketing is so prevalent on HN. It doesn’t make any sense. Why would a private company attempt to convince everyone that what it’s building is dangerous to its own customers?Can you think of a single other time in American history where an entire industry was calling to be regulated? I don’t seem to recall Facebook asking for tighter restrictions on social media. I don’t remember Shell telling the federal government that they need to act fast on climate change. Companies do not market themselves by convincing the public that their products might literally kill them all.

The only way this behavior makes sense is if the AI labs believe two things: one, that what they and the other labs are building is legitimately dangerous, and, two, that if they personally stop building then another lab will simply continue (and that lab will be, simply by virtue of not stopping, less safety-concerned than them). This is why they are calling for regulation. Competitive pressure and investor obligations prevents them from unilaterally stopping development. Government regulation is the only (and the most the appropriate) avenue for slowing down AI acceleration.

reply
As others have mentioned there are lots of examples from history of businesses claiming their product is dangerous if not properly regulated, but I think what's interesting in this moment is there appear to be a cohort of true believers who genuinely believe we're headed for apocalyptic AI, and a cohort of win-at-all-costs businessmen who are happy to harness the earnest faith of the true believers in service of becoming (even more) unfathomably rich.
reply
> I don’t seem to recall Facebook asking for tighter restrictions on social media.

It has happened multiple times. Like the story now, it's fake of course.

https://www.thestranger.com/tech/as-zuckerberg-calls-for-new...

reply
> Can you think of a single other time in American history where an entire industry was calling to be regulated?

Several: the railroad industry, oil industry and trucking industry have all done this because it directly benefited them.

> I don’t remember Shell telling the federal government that they need to act fast on climate change.

The oil barons actively lobbied for Federal intervention in the 1930s, to limit supply and raise prices. You're thinking recent history, but the oil industry has been around for over a century.

reply
Industry has often asked for regulations that have nothing to do with the claims being made. Zuck was a recent example in the computer industry. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47762091

Here’s the same viewpoint from well outside the HN bubble. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/be-wary-of-industries-...

reply
I don’t necessarily believe that the AI itself will kill us all. But the AIs are increasingly being baked into complex, even military, systems. That scares me just because the opportunity for complex, cascading failure becomes very difficult to predict and control. These systems are inherently immoral (it’s just a lot of matrix math) and we know these systems “lie” and try to evade detection (see the Huggingface write ups). Now, couple that behavior with a military system (drones, targeting systems, etc.). I’m not suggesting that we’re headed for full-on Terminator land here, but things definitely could go wrong.
reply
> These systems are inherently immoral (it’s just a lot of matrix math)

(nit) "immoral" is "anti-moral". I suspect you want "amoral", that is "without" or "separated from" morals.

But, if you wanted "immoral" ... what about matrix math derived from gradient descent is inherently "immoral" in your view?

reply
Yes apologies. I did mean amoral. And now I can’t edit it.
reply
Mass adoption of technology always has negative outcomes because any change at scale has negative outcomes. Cars as a technology kill a great number of people and yet few are willing to ban them.

“AI” in the widest definition possible could do while a lot of harm without being a net negative. I’d be way more concerned about the healthcare sector than the military as the military already has significant collateral damage.

reply
Sure, but cars weren’t hooked up to weapons systems. They killed as an accidental side effect. That’s why I’m saying I’m not worried about AI in a general sense.
reply
Cars were quickly tuned into Tanks, APC’s, etc.

The fear around military AI is more about its failure than anything else, but nobody is trying to make fully automated machines which are manufacturing bombs from raw materials. Blowing up the wrong building matters a great deal to the people in the building, but for humanity a building was going to be destroyed either way. So the risk at any one point ends up being quite limited.

reply
I think most would think "I can probably do a better job of not shooting myself in the face than some random person not worried about it will" and then proceed to shoot themselves in the face.

That said, I don't buy the companies actually give a damn about the risk either.

reply
Agreed, but most people who care about not getting shot in the face aren't giving away guns to their neighbors.
reply
Nor are most other neighbors selling guns all day. At some point the analogy breaks down because companies aren't actually people (though this seems to be a divisive take the last few decades).
reply
Oh okay, that makes sense. Since it won't halt problem Anthropic and others might just as well profit from it.
reply
I think there's something here about game theory. I'm not sure what it's called.

The logic that if something is beyond repair anyway you might as well exploit it.

For example I heard a pick-up artist say that he thinks he is harming civilization by sleeping with hundreds of women per year. But that he already considers the situation unsalvageable so... "Might as well?"

I don't think that's an amazing attitude, but the AI labs seem to have a similar idea.

More charitably the logic seems to be, "only I can do this responsibly." I heard that from both Elon Musk (he cites this as his motivation for starting OpenAI — a chat with Sergei Brin that spooked him) and of course Anthropic (which split off from OpenAI due to ethical concerns).

So I don't actually think the ethics is all for show. I think people are actually taking this stuff seriously. But it is indeed deeply unfortunate that the survival of the companies incentivizes them to keep going at an irresponsible pace (by their own admission).

All following the same gradient off a cliff. One AI described it as a tragedy of Ancient Greek proportions.

reply
Some people definitely are taking it seriously. And then there’s Sam Altman who I think would sacrifice his own mother for OpenAI’s IPO.
reply
Bingo. This is the unsolvable calculus. “If we don’t do it, someone will.” Which is quite true. We won’t stop until we see the whites of death‘s eyes.
reply
> Bingo. This is the unsolvable calculus.

Actually, it's easily solvable, even by proper application of existing law, but no solution is possible when big AI is above the law and can hack anybody willy-nilly. The absolute worst we could do is to listen to big AI's pleas to put them in an even more privileged position.

> “If we don’t do it, someone will.”

Do what? There are a lot more choices than "let big AI freely hack everybody" and "stop everybody else from working on AI".

> We won’t stop until we see the whites of death‘s eyes.

Trotting out "the whites of death ‘s eyes" is how real discussion is subverted into a BS binary choice. Open-sourcing all AI is an excellent starting point which will both slow down development to a naturally beneficial pace and allow the broader public to police and weed out bad models.

reply
Open sourcing doesn't mean much when it requires many millions to run one of these 'full fat' models at any kind of real speed. Sure I can run a severly quantized model on my macbook but the performance is abysmal and the success rates go way down.
reply
[flagged]
reply
You think laws will stop this? LOL
reply
Let’s separate out what the companies actually want from the words they’re using for a moment. The top commercial companies are roughly stating:

1. Our AIs are so advanced they’re busting out of our networks and hacking people. We can’t seem to stop them.

2. There are real dangers to just how advanced our AIs are advancing.

3. Someone needs to slow us down

If these were true statements then they’d likely want to shut down themselves for the sake of the planet they live on. If there was a real problem as they have stated then shutting down is the solve (and to be clear, I’m not saying there aren’t problems with the AI industry. I just think they’re BSing us).

In reality this is marketing nonsense (better get in before the ban!) and “our” AI is never open weight/Chinese AI models which they have a different lobbying arm against. If the top four companies got a loosely regulated monopoly through regulatory capture, they’d be giddy.

reply
The previous OpenAI board already tried. It didn’t work, there are significant internal politics at play here. And in any case, the current 2 top players hate and mistrust each other and do not want the other to win.
reply
Or they're just all in it for profit and full of shit
reply
Shh! Don't say it too loud! They might hear you!
reply
At the risk of playing to popular stereotypes, Scott Alexander’s Meditations on Moloch (2014) comes to mind:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Against that backdrop, and treating your question as literal: sounds like they’re saying it’s a classic coordination problem, with a dash of moral superiority. If we don’t, somebody else will; we’d rather it not happen at all, but if it’s going to happen, we’d rather it be us at the wheel. Because, you know. “Good guys” and all.

reply