Thread

1. digitaltrees · 1790530079 · focus · HN ↗

   I think any argument that this is a cynical attempt at regulatory capture is destroyed by this; the economic incentives of releasing more capable models are too large. I might be persuaded that they are actually running out of money, and this is really just a cover for reducing burn..

   I welcome this though, I think the models are smart enough for broad economic activity and we could spend a few years simply working to integrate them into workflows and letting society adjust. More intelligence isn't necessary for meaningful impact and the risks that are obvious and present and unsolved aren't worth the cost benefit analysis.

   1. grogenaut · 1790534152 · focus · HN ↗

      I don't really get how you stop that though. How do you even quantify the intelligence of these models? Right now that's mostly by benchmarks. You could just make it fail benchmarks while do well at internal benchmarks.

      You could also very likely optimize the current models to be a lot more energy efficient, that'd be a win even if they didn't become more intelligent.

      But none of that stops anyone else from researching or improving their models. Or a nation you've told to fuck off from doing so as well.

      As has been said in the past, one doesn't put the genie back in the bottle. We only really "stopped" researching nukes because there was diminishing returns. Though one could posit we stopped because simulation became good enough or a myriad of other reasons.

      When you're talking about nation state weapons capabilities I don't think you stop, but ai is even easier to share than nukes, it's just a few gigs of numbers versus heavy dangerous materials that are very difficult to source and make. Every gamer, mac owner, etc has the equiv lent of a centrifuge on their desk. Not everyone has a centrifuge on their desk.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.