The original comment was philosophically open ended.

I made the example in my response very specific because arguing about hypothetical generalities is usually not productive.

The difference is this: it's difficult to ascertain if someone is guilty or innocent without arresting them. YOu don't arrest people via a random statistical sampling; you arrest via a biased selector: You arrest people you have high odds of beleiving are likely to be guilty. And you arrest them because you cannot ascertain their guilt via non-destructive observation. Without arresting them, they are allowed to simply walk away while you are trying to ascertain their status.

An arrest rate of 10% of all humans would be ridiculous.

A false positive rate of 10% _among the population of people you arrest_ is acceptable.

So the applicable comparison isn't "your cell phone doesn't work 10% of the time", the applicable comparison is "when your cell phone wasn't working, the tech support team guessed correctly as to the root cause 90% of the time, but guessed incorrectly 10% of the time"

IOW, 90% success rate with a 10% FP rate amongst a problematic cohort.

>No I maintain it would be pathetic performance by LEO if they were willy nilly arresting people hoping to bag the perp.

Nobody is advocating for that.

The cops should only be arresting people they have a plausible reason to arrest. If it turns out that 10% of the time their guess was incorrect, that's acceptable. They are not performing random arrests and getting a lot hit rate. They are doing targeted arrests and getting an ultra high hit rate.

Yeah, I've become the old greybeard I used to make fun of. The Tech version of a hero living long enough to become the villain.

Now, get off my lawn! ;-)

>AI is being forced inappropriately into peoples lives with no opt out *everywhere*

I agree with you, and I also don't like that, and I think stopping that via market choices and legislation, as appropriate, is the right thing to do.

In my mind that's totally separate from what I am talking about and commenting on.

That said, you can make legislation so that you're not forced to use it (or be spied on by it), but you cannot make a law that stops AI development. If nothing else, the law won't reach beyond our borders. And eventually a nation hostile to you will develop ASI and then they will impose it on you (and worse)

I've been a professional software engineer for 30 years.

AI has changed everything for software engineers.

I wrote a line of code by hand saturday (client blocks AI) and it was weird. I hadn't done it in months.

I don't have a crystal ball. I cannot say for sure whats coming.

But I would say this: if the scope of your ambition is small, e.g. the possible amount of value you can add as a business (or as an employee) is fundamentally constrained by something, then having a machine do that thing way more efficiently than you is a problem.

Machines will take an increasing share of your fixed pie.

Lots of software isn't that.

Lots of software is trying to make the pie bigger.

We're doing things now that we never would have tried. The incremental cost of writing code goes to zero. Software engineering changes. What assumptions about what you do and how you spend your time and what value you provide change when the cost of writing code goes down 10x or 100x?

For all of human history, the speed of acheiving every goal has been limited by available high-IQ-hours. At every moment in human history, there was unimaginable value not being created because it didn't make the cut compared to everything else that also needed doing - the brains capable of doing it didn't have the remaining hours to do it.

Artificial intelligence is changing the math on that. Unbounded level of available hours at what appears to unbounded level of IQ.

You are trapped in a prison made of your own lack of imagination.

(I'm not saying I'm not, by the way)

I don't understand your point. Can you explain it for me?

I assume you have never tried making an AI model of the type we're discussing (near-frontier LLM), and you have also never tried making a printing press.

Neither have I.

However, knowing a bit about how LLMs work, and knowing a bit about model training for non-LLM models, and having done a bit of word working and metal work, I assume it's actually easier now to make an AI model at home than it is to make a printing press at home.

My response included assumptions which might not hold.

If the way that police work actually worked was "we pick 100 names randomly out of the phone book, arrest them all, and 10 were innocent" ... the biggest problem would _still_ be that of a random sample you have a 90% guilty rate. That's actually not even civilization. Nobody actually trapped in a "society" like that would object to being detained and released.

So the way to think about it is, "we detain 100 people for whom we have probable cause - we believe a crime was taking place, and we believe they were proximal or involved in that crime.. and we have only a 10% false positive rate"

That's really quite good.

So for instance, if you have a riot and you arrest 100 people, and then later you find out that 90% of them are actually criminals, but 10% of them actually didn't break any law, and release that 10% - I'm fine with that. It was completely reasonable to arrest all 100 of them in the first place - they were, after all, in physical proximity to a riot, and they looked and acted enough like the 90% of actual rioters that the police (correctly) detained them.

A fine way of not getting arrested in this scenario is to stay the hell away from riots. And when "protests" become riots, _leave_.

If revolution, anarchy, and violence are the goal, fine. But then don't expect due process.

It sounds like you're saying that the printing press was just a technical enabler, sometimes in the hands of bad people. You're saying that the printing press per-se was neither good nor evil; it was the people who used the printing press for evil ends that really caused the problem.

Me too.

>Should we accept jailing 10 innocent people to catch 90 actual guilty criminals?

Yes.

This is one of those questions that seems philosophically interesting but is not interesting pragmatically.

When you jail someone, you have reason to believe they are proximate to what you believe is a crime. You remove their freedom to move/act temporarily while you ascertain the existence/severity of a crime, and if they are a party to that crime.

When you figure out that you made a mistake, you release them.

The (presumed) alternative here is patently ridiculous.

A society where 0 innocent people are arrested but 90 guilty people run around is much worse than a society where 90 guilty people are caught and 10 innocent people are temporarily detained.

The actual #1 threat to Americans is not being improperly arrested, but being victimized by known repeat criminals who are repeatedly released back into society.

Bukele shows what is possible.

think "Manhattan Project"

The USG doesn't want to be significantly behind anyone else when it comes to having ASI. That's the national security _interest_.

Our elected officials didn't know anything about atomic bombs in 1942 either. They still don't. Back then, the USG provided national security controls and oversight to one of the biggest and most successful fronteir research and engineering projects in human history.

>I'm certainly not sold on the idea

I'm not either.

The Aschenbrenner paper got into my brain and nothing else has dislodged it yet.

tl;dr:
1) if China developers acquires ASI significantly before the US does, the national security posture of the American people and homeland becomes untenable.
2) the disastrous lax security and processes within the American frontier labs make it inevitable that any AGI/ASI developments that happen there will rapidly be exfiltrated to China
3) The last time there was a national security research project this serious was the Manhattan project.

The point of nationalization isn't to keep huggingface from getting hacked or to keep self driving cars from running over strollers. Nobody who matters cares about any of that stuff. We are all expendable to them.

The point of a US national security takeover is to try and delay or prevent ASI breakthroughs being leaked to adversary countries.

>There are no misuses of the printing press, this is just your grotesque failure of logic.

Every governing authority that has come after the printing press disagrees with you. All have concluded that the printing press is misused often enough that they have jailed or killed people who they have deemed to have misused it.

I knew what I was doing when I put "misuse" in quotes.

>But you've already given us reason to completely disrepect your opinions.
Who is this "us" you speak of?

>Right, it's the printing press responsible for wars, not christianity.
The printing press was the amoral technology that enabled the reformation and the "democritization" of Christianity, and was a direct contributor to the reformation wars.

A different testcase points to this: The great schism between Rome and Constantinope (Roman Catholic vs. Orthodox) happened 500 years earlier than the protestant reformation, but did NOT lead to hundreds of years of fratricide between east and west.

>"National security reasons" is a justification for controlling applications of AI, not AI itself.

You actually didn't read (or understand) the paper that you dismissed.

Aschenbrenner argues that the reason to nationalize AI labs is because the AI labs are badly run, from an opsec perspective. It has nothing to do with good or bad applications of AI. He argues that it's trivially easy for someone to exfiltrate AGI/ASI from the labs as they are currently run; the research culture being used is not compatible with the national security impact of the work being performed.

We are at the cusp of something that is likely to be more dangerous and more impactful than the atomic bomb. Look at what USG did once the Manhattan project got under way. New cities were built in remote locations. The top researchers under American jurisdiction were forcibly relocated.

I don't know what the USG/NS response will or should look like. It probably doesn't look like "Sam gets to keep doing whatever he wants"

>The printing press was invented at a time when safety standards were virtually non-existent

I have no idea if the machines were dangerous to the operators or not, but whatever deaths may have happened to the operators is a rounding error compared to the deaths that are directly downstream of how the widespread usage of the printing press changed civilization forever.

The latter is actually my point: not that printing presses are unsafe, but that the way printing presses changed society caused a lot of death.

For the printing press, I think generally people have believed that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

This will also be the case with AI.

The headline is reasonable.

AI is a technology. It doesn't have moral agency. It can be used for good and for bad.

So far, the printing press is responsible for more deaths than AI.

(Printing Press -> Mass distribution of Luther's bible translation -> Protestant Reformation -> hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe)

Despite all of the death that is downstream of the printing press, the usual response in the west has been to ban specific "misuses" of the printing press - not the printing press itself.

The specifics that Altman is saying - that voluntary slowdowns are good, or that external oversight over OpenAI is bad - I disagree with.

Instead, I agree with Aschenbrenner's paper. The AI labs should probably be nationalized for national security reasons.

(Notably, Aschenbrenner claims he was fired by OpenAI for expressing these concerns internally)

"We at Siemens have seen how successful SCO was, and think we can be just as successful!"

As I suggested in 2011 in this video, theft may rise if people lose faith in the exchange economy. Other interwoven economies of subsistence, gift, exchange, and planned could also alternatively take up the slack if they were improves -- instead of people becoming more inclined to crime.
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

My thanks to a Slashdot commentator many years ago who suggested I add a "theft" economy to the other four.

So, my hypothesis is that theft around SF could be substantially reduced if some mix of these were made to happen:
1. It was easier to do subsistence production (like using 3D printers, solar panels, and gardening robots etc.)
2. the SF gift economy (charity, sharing, freecycle, free 3D models, etc) was stronger.
3. the California exchange economy was working better for everyone (i.e. less wealth concentration through inflated property prices, limits on multiples of CEO pay vs lowest paid worker, a basic income, etc)
4. the California planned economy was working better (i.e. fairer taxation of property, public investments that create good jobs or reduce product prices or increase product quality, changing zoning restrictions to make affordable housing more feasible, more responsive democratic government, etc)

Sadly, because people tend to focus on only the exchange economy when talking about economic (and so ignore strengthening those other areas), we will likely see increasing theft as we go into a recession and as AI takes enough jobs to disrupt the exchange economy.

More ideas I've collected are here:
"Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpdfernhout.net%2Fbeyond-...
        "This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."