[HN Gopher] Who will control the future of AI?
___________________________________________________________________
Who will control the future of AI?
Author : kjhughes
Score : 33 points
Date : 2024-07-25 13:07 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| amelius wrote:
| As in 51% of people using AI to dominate the remaining 49%? The
| latter group could contain artists.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Considering the evolution of tech that doesn't seem too bad.
| The status quo in tech is the 0.0001% dominating the rest.
| Zambyte wrote:
| Luckily we have Mistral, Meta, and even to an extent Google
| working on democratizing AI.
| mrkeen wrote:
| > These measures would include cyberdefense and data center
| security innovations to prevent hackers from stealing key
| intellectual property such as model weights and AI training data.
|
| Let's be equally democratic about democracy. Stop people from
| seeing voting data, and prevent legislation from being leaked to
| the public.
| imchillyb wrote:
| AI didn't begin in a democratic landscape. AI's current dominant
| players don't operate in a democratic landscape.
|
| So in order for OpenAI to remain ahead of competition, now we
| need a democratic landscape.
|
| Nah. I don't think so. AI's future relies upon data wars.
|
| Good luck with that Altman. Now that your future is wrapped up in
| the chains of political expedience. How's that former general and
| ex NSA director working out for y'all?
|
| Yeah, oh so Democratic.
| 0xbadc0de5 wrote:
| Sam Altman can ensure the democratization of AI by immediately
| halting all attempts at regulatory capture and ceasing his
| attempts to use government regulation to stifle all competition.
| beardyw wrote:
| I'm trying to work out who his audience is for this?
| mrkeen wrote:
| Anyone who will gladly bend for the mental gymnastics of
| "Democracy is not by/for the people, Democracy is the ongoing
| fight of a few select American corporations against Russia".
| paxys wrote:
| He is a CEO. The intended audience is always shareholders in
| his company.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > The rapid progress being made on artificial intelligence means
| that we face a strategic choice about what kind of world we are
| going to live in
|
| AI ppl keep saying this. What kind of rapid progress is being
| made. Chatgpt growth has flatlined and current models are not
| much different from what was available 2 yrs ago?
|
| > More advances will soon follow
|
| What makes him keep saying this. Does he know something that we
| don't know?
|
| > U.S. policymakers must work with the private sector to build
| significantly larger quantities of the physical infrastructure --
| from data centers to power plants
|
| yea no we are not going subsidize your chatbot Mr. Altman. Not
| falling for it. I am guessing MSFT sees the writing on the wall
| and is turning off money spigot ?
|
| > Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has darkly warned that the
| country that wins the AI race will "become the ruler of the
| world,"
|
| lmao No one is falling for Q* type hype anymore so this guy is
| resorting to these pathetic scare tactics .
| mrkeen wrote:
| > What makes him keep saying this. Does he know something that
| we don't know?
|
| It works for Musk every time.
| benterix wrote:
| Not any longer I would say.
| lolinder wrote:
| What I'm hearing:
|
| 1) Security is important.
|
| 2) The government should subsidize our infrastructure costs.
|
| 3) The government should restrict chip and code deployment in
| other countries to keep AI here.
|
| 4) We need to build up a bureaucracy of some kind to regulate
| this tech.
|
| I'm not at all sure what "democratic AI protocols" is supposed to
| mean, but the main thrust of this piece isn't substantially
| different than most of what we've been seeing from Altman in his
| lobbying efforts. Translated from lobbyist-speak, to me this says
| "My company is losing its lead and isn't confident we'll be able
| to keep up going forward. I need you, the governments of the
| world, to do something about that ASAP. Here are some vaguely
| national-security-related justifications you can use to sell it
| to your voters."
| paxys wrote:
| I'm sure the piece was being planned for a while, but it's
| funny that it dropped in the same week as Meta and Mistral
| releasing fully open source models that outperform OpenAI's
| own. You want democratic AI? There it is.
| tledakis wrote:
| 2 is probably linked to their expensive infra:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41063097
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| There is definitely a defense argument to be made. With
| enough compute you can use AI to entirely snuff out any
| signal with noise on any adversaries online resources. It's
| like having the power to snap your fingers and fire up a
| billion printing presses right next to where people read it.
| It's probably one of the most significant advances in
| propaganda if we are being honest about its capabilities.
| beezlewax wrote:
| You could have done this without ai though right?
| paxys wrote:
| "AI is as revolutionary as nuclear weapons and the internet. The
| government should spend hundreds of billions on it." - CEO of an
| AI company who will be the beneficiary of all that public
| spending.
|
| Looking from the outside, the AI hype is pretty much over. Yes it
| is still an important piece of tech and will still continue to
| evolve, but I don't know too many people, whether regular joes or
| world leaders, who still consider it an existential threat to
| humanity or really think about it much at all.
| bloppe wrote:
| I cringe every time I read the words "go rogue" in an AI
| article. The state of the art is still basically madlibs. Sure,
| I'm worried about terrorists using AI to generate new
| bioweapons, but including those concerns in the same breath as
| something about skynet makes it sound childish.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| this answer fully misses fundamental aspects of computers and
| networks. Computers can work 24x7 week after week, month
| after month. Large computer clouds can answer millions of
| queries a minute, as long as required. Modern data tech
| enables the complete and total collection of specialist
| knowledge of XYZ to be available at all times, with
| competitive accuracy. This answer is not applying the
| imagination to circumstances where events happen in real time
| involving millions of people, their transportation systems,
| their communication systems and power disparity between those
| driving the AIs and those relying on public systems or market
| systems.
|
| Since some AIs are built as "goal seeking" they can iterate
| through whatever resources they have internally, much faster
| than any person or team of people can track. Much of modern
| AI is literally a black box when it comes to tracing what
| happens to reach some abstractly defined goal.
|
| Your cringe is a cringe at your own myopia. I am not paranoid
| nor exaggerating.. Others with credentials in this field, and
| others with details of system behavior today, are saying
| things similar to this.
| toasterlovin wrote:
| Out here in physical reality you still need humans to do
| things. That isn't changing any time soon.
| bloppe wrote:
| https://archive.is/Jn5xv
| h2odragon wrote:
| Democratic, in that a bunch of dudes no one knows sit down and
| decide what the rest of the world will be allowed to vote for?
|
| Or democratic in the sense that everyone gets to participate and
| the results may shock and displease those who think they're
| powerful and in control?
|
| Words change their meaning rapidly these days, so we need to
| chase which definitions are being used.
| Refusing23 wrote:
| What i hear him say is: i dont want competition outside of the US
| greentxt wrote:
| He lists a bunch of "we musts" that most intelligent people
| understand to be definite "we cant's" and the "we" is fairly
| vague (a coalition of whom exactly?) and states plainly that if
| "we" don't do these things (e.g. secure our data centers against
| CCP hackers -- haha good luck!) we'll be enslaved fairly soon by
| our communist adversaries. Is this his way of seeking
| forgiveness?
| benterix wrote:
| Why is this flagged? Can't we have a civilzed discussion around
| the claims of the CEO of the company at the head of the current
| tech bubble? I don't think we should believe anything he says,
| but please, at least let's have the option of discussing his
| claims here.
| JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote:
| IMHO he's like Elon Musk. Everything he says is a lie or a way
| for him to get more money. I always read the interviews, but
| there is never anything interesting.
| snowpid wrote:
| Sam Altman doesn't interact with far right German
| politicians. Unlike Musk who does this regularly.
| saulpw wrote:
| Not yet that you know of.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > I always read the interviews, but there is never anything
| interesting.
|
| Same with Mira Murati. I used to eagerly listened to her
| interviews but she repeats the same cliches and non answers.
|
| There is something not right with this company. We still
| don't know why sam was fired right?
| benterix wrote:
| I sometimes imagine a dark room with several high profile VCs.
| One of them says: "The times of Zuck when people voluntarily gave
| all their personal data to a random company are over, they are
| much better informed now, we won't have a second chance like
| that." Then Sama stands up and says, "Hold my beer and I'll
| convince the whole world to voluntarily give me their biometric
| data just like that." And people queue to have their retinas
| scanned.
| snowpid wrote:
| It might be interesting why he does not mention the EU AI Act or
| the GDPR (Meta doesn't like it and withdraw their model from the
| EU market). Draw your conclusion here.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| AI
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-25 23:09 UTC)