Thread

1. chasd00 · 1790595720 · focus · HN ↗

   I’ve never seen CEOs work so hard to make the public aware of how dangerous and out of control their flagship product is. It makes me automatically assume they’re scheming about something else like regulatory capture to protect their market.

   1. hellweaver666 · 1790597785 · focus · HN ↗

      I have a theory... the call to slow down is not because of the true danger of LLM's but because they can't actually deliver the General AI they're promising in the near future. They will use their "caution" to justify their failure to deliver (and then when this excuse is played out they will blame regulation, energy costs or a million other things).

      1. mofeien · 1790599155 · focus · HN ↗

         When, in the past three years, has model progress seemed to decelerate to you, indicating some limit?

         The Statement on AI Extinction Risk is more than three years old, signed by the three CEOs: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aistatement.com&#x2F;work&#x2F;statement-on-ai-extinction-risk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aistatement.com&#x2F;work&#x2F;statement-on-ai-extinction-risk

         They have been warning about AI extinction risk for years, and AI progress has only been accelerating.

         1. palmotea · 1790599421 · focus · HN ↗

            &gt; They have been warning about AI extinction risk for years, and AI progress has only been accelerating.

            So, they&#x27;re either liars or homicidally reckless.

            1. bryan0 · 1790602949 · focus · HN ↗

               Unfortunately if the frontier labs that care about safety stop or slow down unilaterally, that doesn’t make the problem go away. It makes it worse when labs that do not care at all about safety, or deny that it is even a problem, are leading the way. That’s why there’s needs to be some form of international regulation.

               1. icantevenhold · 1790603890 · focus · HN ↗

                  Incidentally this regulation won’t really touch the US providers - at least it sounds like that’s the plan if you listen to current US admin

                  1. voakbasda · 1790605329 · focus · HN ↗

                     We literally cannot touch them, as that would be the first domino to topple in our economy. There is too much money concentrated in this sector, and adverse regulation would create an investor shockwave that would send us into a full blown depression.

                     Which ironically is also the outcome of letting these companies continue unchecked. If they produce AGI&#x2F;ASI, our economy will go through an upheaval that leaves vast tracts of the population unemployed. This is their stated goal.

                     We are damned if we do something, and damned if we don’t.

                     1. palmotea · 1790607875 · focus · HN ↗

                        &gt; We literally cannot touch them, as that would be the first domino to topple in our economy. There is too much money concentrated in this sector, and adverse regulation would create an investor shockwave that would send us into a full blown depression.

                        Important people will loose too much money on their tulip investments, so tulips must go up forever?

                        Seems like a &quot;less pain now or more pain later&quot; type situation.

                        1. voakbasda · 1790698690 · focus · HN ↗

                           Don’t get me wrong; the correct solution would be to prevent our economy from becoming so lop-sided to begin with. Or now to effective amputate the infected limb before the blood turns septic. Both require more spine and guts than anyone has got.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.