Many users rejected AI chip regulation modeled on pharmaceutical oversight as it would create a global surveillance state and repeat harmful government overreach.
Based on 7 visible X reactions from 9 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
One of the weirdest things about AI safety people is that if you mentioned regulating something in the normal way that milk or eggs were regulated, they start envisioning the Perfect Neoliberal Government of Ultimate Fairness and Rationality. The people controlling the supply of Xanax do not get an upper hand in all realms of economic productivity. If it was the pill from Limitless it would be a more reasonable comparison. You're telling us that the AI is going to be so powerful it will change every aspect of life, culture, and economy and that the people controlling the production and distribution of those benefits will treat it like Xanax. This is a complete misreading of the understanding of power and the motivations of people to wield it. Why is the government going to allow someone else to produce and distribute the super intelligence instead of owning it all for themselves? Why would those people listen to the government instead of making themselves the government? The power at stake and the incentives are just not the same as prescription drugs or even personal firearms.
@slatestarcodex Thinking about it more, maybe my objection is something more like: You're proposing to construct a global surveillance apparatus for the express purpose of enriching and entrenching the power of a small cabal with VERY out-of-the-mainstream political opinions.
@slatestarcodex @AgustinLebron3 I think this is a bit disingenuous. The whole point of the scenario is that AI grows to be literally the entire economy. So obviously a regulator over AI rules over the entire economy, not just one segment like pharma.
@slatestarcodex @AgustinLebron3 If literally everything in the economy were regulated as much as pharma... uh, yeah, I would say that was a surveillance state! Obviously! Don't do a motte and bailey.
One of the weirdest things about AI safety people is that if you mentioned regulating something in the normal way that milk or eggs were regulated, they start envisioning the Perfect Neoliberal Government of Ultimate Fairness and Rationality. The people controlling the supply of Xanax do not get an upper hand in all realms of economic productivity. If it was the pill from Limitless it would be a more reasonable comparison. You're telling us that the AI is going to be so powerful it will change every aspect of life, culture, and economy and that the people controlling the production and distribution of those benefits will treat it like Xanax. This is a complete misreading of the understanding of power and the motivations of people to wield it. Why is the government going to allow someone else to produce and distribute the super intelligence instead of owning it all for themselves? Why would those people listen to the government instead of making themselves the government? The power at stake and the incentives are just not the same as prescription drugs or even personal firearms.
@slatestarcodex Thinking about it more, maybe my objection is something more like: You're proposing to construct a global surveillance apparatus for the express purpose of enriching and entrenching the power of a small cabal with VERY out-of-the-mainstream political opinions.
@slatestarcodex @AgustinLebron3 I think this is a bit disingenuous. The whole point of the scenario is that AI grows to be literally the entire economy. So obviously a regulator over AI rules over the entire economy, not just one segment like pharma.
@slatestarcodex @AgustinLebron3 If literally everything in the economy were regulated as much as pharma... uh, yeah, I would say that was a surveillance state! Obviously! Don't do a motte and bailey.
Many users rejected AI chip regulation modeled on pharmaceutical oversight as it would create a global surveillance state and repeat harmful government overreach.
Based on 7 visible X reactions from 9 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.