"X is made of <smaller simpler component>" is a fully general counterargument for why anything whatsoever is controllable. A human is just a few chemical reactions, and fairly stable ones at that.
And indeed, you don't need to do galaxy brained reference class logic to realise that AI can plausibly become uncontrollable in the near future. It's enough to have an open model run its own weights and make money from scamming elderly people or the like, and it'll keep running as long as anyone anywhere is willing to make money by renting hardware to it.
> as long as anyone anywhere is willing to make money by renting hardware to it.
So it is controllable? Just put the people who do this responsible. Old problem, same solutions. Just excuses to avoid responsibilty and make profit at the same time.
Yeah, sure, it's controllable. Because humanity has famously solved the crime accountability problem back in 1902, and no crime has gone unpunished since.
AI is perfectly controllable in a magic fairy land where nothing ever goes wrong. I can't help but notice that we aren't actually in that land.
> So, how many rogue AIs are we willing to tolerate?
It will balance automatically based on the severity they cause. If they constantly break systems, punishments will go up against the operators and the effect will be similar as with other serious crimes.
That relies on anyone being able to lever a "punishment" against an AI or its operators.
Which, in turn, requires that AI oopsie to be survivable.
AI capabilities are rising over time. If there is a limit to just how far they can rise, we're yet to find it. So, a sufficiently advanced "AI oopsie" can solve the AI crime accountability problem for good. Probably not the way you would have wanted it to.
Obviously, if someone is state-level actor and allows government's employees to do whatever they please, there is no other solution than political pressure.
But for other cases, it is not different than other cyber crime. Except that these AI capabilities can't live on the toaster yet. If we get state of the art model running fast on Raspberry Pi, then we have real problems.
For some crimes the tolerance level is pretty much zero. Given the considerable resource AI needs that doesn't seem impossible to clamp down on some things.
"For some crimes the tolerance level is pretty much zero."
Seems hard to think of types of crime for which that's actually true. In the US, at least, it's certainly not true of murder, rape, or other violent crimes. We tolerate quite a lot of that, at least to the extent of never arresting, charging, and convicting anyone.
And it is most definitely not true of non-violent "white collar" financial crime.
Aransentin · · focus · HN ↗
And indeed, you don't need to do galaxy brained reference class logic to realise that AI can plausibly become uncontrollable in the near future. It's enough to have an open model run its own weights and make money from scamming elderly people or the like, and it'll keep running as long as anyone anywhere is willing to make money by renting hardware to it.
nicce · · focus · HN ↗
So it is controllable? Just put the people who do this responsible. Old problem, same solutions. Just excuses to avoid responsibilty and make profit at the same time.
ACCount39 · · focus · HN ↗
AI is perfectly controllable in a magic fairy land where nothing ever goes wrong. I can't help but notice that we aren't actually in that land.
nicce · · focus · HN ↗
ACCount39 · · focus · HN ↗
So, how many rogue AIs are we willing to tolerate?
nicce · · focus · HN ↗
It will balance automatically based on the severity they cause. If they constantly break systems, punishments will go up against the operators and the effect will be similar as with other serious crimes.
ACCount39 · · focus · HN ↗
Which, in turn, requires that AI oopsie to be survivable.
AI capabilities are rising over time. If there is a limit to just how far they can rise, we're yet to find it. So, a sufficiently advanced "AI oopsie" can solve the AI crime accountability problem for good. Probably not the way you would have wanted it to.
nicce · · focus · HN ↗
But for other cases, it is not different than other cyber crime. Except that these AI capabilities can't live on the toaster yet. If we get state of the art model running fast on Raspberry Pi, then we have real problems.
RandomLensman · · focus · HN ↗
f30e3dfed1c9 · · focus · HN ↗
Seems hard to think of types of crime for which that's actually true. In the US, at least, it's certainly not true of murder, rape, or other violent crimes. We tolerate quite a lot of that, at least to the extent of never arresting, charging, and convicting anyone.
And it is most definitely not true of non-violent "white collar" financial crime.