Five men control AI. Who should control them?

billfor•about 7 hours ago

Clearly the Economist and their panel of experts.

camillomiller•about 7 hours ago

So basically the same 5 men, considering that the Economist is the mouthpiece of the capitalist global oligarchy

xnx•about 5 hours ago

Demis Hassabis is on their list? He reports to Sundar (who reports to Sergey Brin?)

comrade1234•about 7 hours ago

No Chinese? Guess they're no good at ai.

saltyoldman•about 1 hour ago

That wouldn't fit the narrative.

saltyoldman•about 9 hours ago

The countries that they're in already do via the law. No one else should "control" someone.

rgbrgb•about 7 hours ago

to be fair, that's exactly what's at issue. controlling AI implies controlling society as intelligence scales.

rolph•about 9 hours ago

no one should have to control some one, until they become a threat.

when someone presents a threat, at large, they have limited entitlement to walk among society, or act without review.

JumpCrisscross•about 7 hours ago

> no one should have to control some one, until they become a threat

The Helots were a threat to Spartans. Black Haitians to the French. Jews to the Reich.

Threats feel like a reasonable reason to reduce another’s rights. But they turn out to be the most usual way of tricking oneself into becoming a monster.

gobdovan•about 7 hours ago

I am starting to believe a significant number of humans run a computation that goes something like this: "Can I control AI? Will I meet people that control AI personally? If no, why would I care if they're treated unfairly in the abstract? Most important thing for me is they don't affect my resources in any way. They're better off than most either way, if anything not willingly reducing their power shows greed and confirms they're threats."

monknomo•about 7 hours ago

Are you comparing the ai ceos to helots? I am confused

rolph•about 5 hours ago

i fixed that for you:

"The Spartans were a threat to Helots. the French to Black Haitians. the reich to the Jews."

justification, doesnt transform a victim into a threat.

npfo-hn•about 7 hours ago

Congratulations! You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust! You just equated the idea that there should be some democratic restrictions based on corporate activity with death camps that murdered millions!

You win the "most HN post of the month" award. Never change, HN. Never change.

bigyabai•about 9 hours ago

The law is only relevant insofar as it's enforced. In America, that's a tossup.

SilentM68•about 6 hours ago

Good point. People do not think of a scenario where one billionaire might decide to take their wealth and resources and hunker down on a dictator-controlled country where extradition does not apply, that person could easily experiment and create an AI that may not necessarily see us as relevant to their existence.

I probably won't be able to respond to this comment since some people on this forum have flagged my comments as inappropriate thus limiting the number of daily posts I can make :)

gizmodo59•about 7 hours ago

“Insider is supported by ANTHROPIC“ get their money and act like independent? What a joke

judahmeek•about 5 hours ago

https://ai-2027.com does a solid job of demonstrating the existential risk of the singularity. If it is actually approaching, we need leaders who will give potential black swan events the severe caution they are due.

I sure hope the theoretical timeline is compressed because the singularity under Donald Trump likely means that we're all dead due to misalignment.

Five men control AI. Who should control them?

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (21 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews