• boonhet@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    160
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    I’m sure Bernie has good intentions but this is exactly what Altman and Amodei want and why they’re constantly shouting how dangerous AI is.

    Any AI startup can then be labeled as developing artificial superintelligence. Not them though, they’re working together with the government.

    • bampop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      Plus OpenAI’s IPO has been delayed due to the hype not being favorable enough, so it’s time to put on the brakes so that AGI can remain just around the corner for a little while longer.

      That said, I do think Bernie’s idea of making the public voting stakeholders in AI companies is interesting. Existential threats notwithstanding, AI is having a significant impact in a lot of ways and the public interest should be represented. Though in practice I doubt that you’ll get the entire public voting in any meaningful direction so that 50% might not make any effective change.

    • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      Not them though, they’re working together with the government.

      Isn’t there a law for them who plan and prepare to grab the power? I mean, that’s what this Altman is doing all the time. Has been doing for at least 2 years now.

    • fartographer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 days ago

      I get your point, but I also argue “no it’s not.” The AI bros want to lie about how their super-special autocomplete is the most dangerous of all without any consequences. Good luck getting any employees to willingly substantiate your claims when 20 years in prison is on the line.

      Even better, if they try to hack another company and claim their AI did it on its own, they get treated like a private company who decided to perform an unsanctioned nuclear test.

      Make it dangerous for them to claim they’re dangerous.

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        Okay, fair, it’s not the ONLY reason they claim it’s dangerous. Obviously marketing is a large part of it. But they sure as hell would both like a duopoly setup enforced by LAW for themselves. Well at this point, I guess quadropoly? I doubt Google or Musk would give up their seats at the table. But anyone making an AI better or cheaper than the established players, would be deemed dangerous. Those working with the DoD would of course not be considered dangerous. Foreign models? Absolutely dangerous, restrict access as much as possible, especially to open weight ones.

    • Smaile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      20 days ago

      this will only hurt the us further, many will simply build outside of america.

    • Brimstone@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 days ago

      I wouldn’t be sure he has any good intentions.

      Trump wants no AI regulation.

      This is just the opposite of that which is what usually works for opposition politicians.

      • Goodeye8@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 days ago

        Reducing Bernie to the “opposite politician”, well that’s definitely a take for the ages.