Ah yes the old "banning things=bad" argument that doesn't offer alternatives to fixing the issues with AI. Just ignore the issues with environmental impact, plagiarism, CP and other non-consensual shit in the data sets, scamming capabilities! All the groups asking for regulation here have **funding** and that means they are evil but we are good for using this tool that is massively subsidized by megacorps that have a vested interest in this market.
'It's scary, ban it!' isn't a great argument either.
Especially when 'safety' has such a blurred definition, we could be talking about anything from the threat of global apocalypse to to the 'threat' of an AI merely being able to answer questions about 'wrong' political opinions.
Skynet isn't going to happen. The biggest threat from AI is taking jobs away and creating poverty while redirecting more wealth to the super-rich.
In the short term, we're likely to be facing a lot more convincing spam/bots and deepfakery in the run up to the election - but is that the fault of the AI, or the fault of the humans directly operating their new toys/tools?
Banning AI is simply useless. It's a technology that anyone with sufficient processing power and access to the internet can use, so trying to ban it is guaranteed to fail just like prohibiting alcohol would be.
The only thing we can do is limit how megacorps can openly abuse the technology.
It's just plainly retarded steering from progress. Only one who would profit from it would be a nations who wouldn't give a flying fuck about your ban. Exactly like with nuclear energy.
Less harmful would be to ban large models from being not open.
If you ban open large models in US, you'll cripple US and make few megacorps very rich, very quickly. You'll drain talent to other (also competing) states. Truly bad actors won't be affected, if anything they'll get advantage.
People draw weird analogies equating llama2 to nuclear device etc. nonsense but the closer analogy would be to ban on semiconductors of certain efficiency for US itself.
Similar idiotic argument as for banning cryptography.
I agree, but if there's enough political will (ie these orgs convince a large enough subset of the right people) the US can bully other nations to implement similar policities like it has done many times in the past.
once you understand that what they are trying to protect is the safety of their profits every of their argument start to make sense.
You can replace "US" with "US and states that agreed to do the same". The argument still stands, it just creates worse outcome for states that agreed to it.
