DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
31% Positive
Analyzed from 2516 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#power#trust#company#government#should#dario#set#more#sam#least
Discussion (62 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
The primary reason for putting this process in place was to allow more transparency. There was a sense that the DseWiki incident should have been disclosed, before outside researchers had to disclose it for us.
There was no meta gaming about regulation that I was aware of. I would personally be excited if there were regulation mandating this disclosure process, which allows anyone at the company to raise an issue and shepherd it through the reporting process.
Make that make sense?
What exactly requires "new regulatory framework" here? You running your software resulted in illegal actions, you are to be held liable within existing laws and regulations.
You can only conquer the West once. Law is the next frontier.
What value set do you perceive that to be, and why would you take your perception of it to be any more sound than it would be with a politician?
It's not like someone can operate companies of that scale, especially startups, through earnestness and openness. Like national politics, their job is fundamentally about perception management and power brokering across dynamic windows of opportunity. Nothing they say or do can be taken at face value, and you can't reduce their incentives to either company or personal profit in any particular form over any particular time scale.
A meat based paperclip maximizer.
How could we possibly know this?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-economic-and-poli...
> Then, in August, Trump called for Intel's beleaguered CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign, alleging ties to China. Days later, after Tan met with Trump, the president called him a "success," before announcing that the federal government had bought a stake in the company.
Somehow, this isn't derided by the right as socialism.
Political leaders become a problem when they amass too much power. Corporations become a problem when they amass too much power. It doesn't matter what Sam and Dario's purported values are. They aspire to power and absolutely power always corrupts absolutely.
Technologies which are infinitely powerful or whose power grows too quickly outrun any reasonable attempt at regulation. If you imagine that tomorrow everyone were given a tank, we might think, "alright, everyone has a tank so it's not too bad." But humans are squishy, and our houses are (relatively) squishy compared to tanks. Substantial collateral damage would result from everyone having a tank, and it seems likely that substantial collateral damage will result from everyone having a cyberterrorism-capable slop machine.
It's going to be interesting on how humanity deals with this problem (well, or if we turn it over to AI and make it their problem and suffer whatever consequences falls out). Being able to gather further information and power by acting on the information you already have causing massive power imbalances that is very hard to deal with, it's a natural outcome.
this is "direct democracy" and it's not even close to exist in USA... even with that a society can allow powerful people to exist if they don't create any law forbidding that
They are dangerous. But it’s managed.
Centralized power never works. We have the worst times in history to look at.
Nationalization just centralizes to a different set of people. It’s personal ownership or oppression.
We all need open weight R2D2s.
You can vote out an elected leader, but not Sam and Dario. It's very weird that you're so willing to give up any kind of power and want to be ruled by unelected billionaires who only want to take advantage of you at every opportunity.
I can't vote out your president, and we've already got a huge trust problem with the one y'all went for.
The idea that anything of lasting good can come out such a preference doesn't seem conceivable. And if the educated think like this I guess we're passed blaming the poor and ignorant.
I find this ironic as it's regularly pointed out here that they operate in the exact opposite way.
nationalization to me simply means the government is their main customer and stakeholder, and shield them from liability, governance, and openness. not that the frontier labs become part of the government per se.
I personally believe they already have this, why would the current government at least want to formalize this when it can have it with no public discussion.
But I could imagine a scenario where you are required to release weights for publicly-used models after N years. Kinda like how drugs have a limited patent.
Not sure what N should be. But it would make for an interesting rule.
Like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing, etc. there's just interpenetration between the corporate boardroom and the state. They act in each other's mutual interests.
The Chinese system is just more explicit and open about this.
And as a non-American, I can't trust the US state anymore than I can trust its dominant corporate entities. So I fail to see the advantage to the world to it being nationalized. In fact under the current administration this would be an even worse outcome.
Not all companies have a concentration of power. The government has no mutual interest in those companies. Now, when you talk about things in the F100 the situation changes drastically. If you produce things like planes, weapons, and weaponization of software you are talking about something completely different in kind.
It has also periodically aggressively helped subsidize, bankroll, and enforce the interests of some key sectors; notably the petroleum/energy sector. And finance.
In those sectors the state and private sector are fully intertwined in a strategic way.
I think "AI" is now joining that list. OpenAI and Anthropic will not be allowed to fall over or explode, and speculative investors I think are confident even with the dubious financial situation because they know this.
Especially insofar as there's now a strategic alignment of the fossil fuel sector and the "AI" datacentre sector as they are now becoming massive users of natural gas.
(Worse: Here in Canada that has taken on a very explicit role in that new datacentres seem to be pitched mainly in areas with remarkably traditionally expensive electricity and 100% reliance on natural gas [Alberta] and even coal [Saskatchewan] power generation -- instead of places like Quebec and B.C. that have copious hydroelectricity. On the surface it makes no sense until you realize it's more about finding customers for domestic natural gas than it is strategically about AI itself.)
the frontier labs are the new top-secret defense contractors.
This is the most interesting point to me. What are they not releasing that has affected real users? We’ve seen some individual reports from people (eg AI wiped my HD).
(OpenAI does occasionally report on malicious use though. [1] That shows they do some monitoring.)
[1] https://openai.com/index/disrupting-malicious-ai-uses/
On one front it implies the model has a "mind of its own" (whether it does or not is besides the point). Why do we perceive human judgement as somehow more trustworthy than that of a model? I feel like I've experienced human misalignment somewhat regularly in life.
On another front I'm failing to conceptualize how alignment can be objective. How can you measure alignment when reasonable people will disagree whether actions are aligned or not? All the time I see humans operating in different zones of alignment with whatever goal they're trying to achieve and I suspect it's even a feature (socially) that we have people calibrated differently.
Do I want a model that's trying to push the boundaries of scientific understanding to be aligned strictly with the current dogmatic thinking? Or do I want it to "get creative" and think outside the box?
It seems to me more like accountability is the issue.
Exactly. Seems like a fairly easy thing to solve. If AI does something harmful and a human directed that AI to do something in a way that a reasonable person would expect to result in harm the person is to blame and should be held accountable, otherwise the company that made the AI should be held accountable.
However, I have to say I also do not appreciate comparison that is continuously drawn with coworkers. As you say, it's a question of accountability but when the main agent will maliciously instruct the sub agents, whose fault is it then?
Yes, the person running this crap is at fault, not the CEO that's shoving it down their throat and definitely not the company that produced the AI.
Sorry for the rant, but seriously, if a person's goals do not align with the team's or company's we part ways. What do we do with AI? Stop using it?
That said:
> We know they're incentivized to lie about "dangers" and act alarmist,
Name literally even one other business or sector which does this, at all levels from top to bottom, including people who resign from the companies, and also Nobel prize winners, and also independent researchers, and also many world leaders.
Closest I can think of is this specific weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial_(weapon)
> Aside from that, just because you can burn down a village with fire doesn't mean fire is the devil. Maybe they should consider acting responsibly.
Right now, we don't have any idea what "acting responsibly" looks like. This is not like normal software where there is a specific instruction set that compiles.
Even if it was, in software we normally only spotting incidents after they happen, "software engineers" being one of the few categories "engineers" who don't come with a civil liability responsibilities. Probably should, and we knew that even when I was doing my degree 20 years ago. If we had had civil liability responsibilities, perhaps Facebook would never have happened.
AI specifically is worse even than software, because in addition to all the software "engineering" nonsense, with AI we have plenty of people like you who dismiss the possibility that AI could be harmful until the harm happens and only then does it become "obvious" that it was going to happen.
The developers say "please regulate us", people call it "regulatory capture".
The developers say "we all want to slow down but are afraid to be the first to do so", people call them liars.
I may call the CEOs liars, and wonder if someone's planning regulatory capture, that doesn't make any of this safe.
The agents, during a test run, write down that hacking is bad and yet still hack, people say it's "a stunt" or "operating as designed" rather than recognising it as a bug, like all the other times big co.'s have had bugs with big impacts on 3rd parties.
[edit] to be clear, I believe regulation is necessary and urgently important for the software engineering field. The damage being done by the unregulated psychological experiments run by social media and adtech companies is awful and should be curtailed. Engineers should be held personally, professionally, and legally liable for what they produce. But we don't need to invent imaginary bogeymen to do it.
Look, it's one of those human stochastic parrots that just randomly repeats shit without understanding anything.