Five men control AI. Who should control them?(www.economist.com)

13 pointsby andsoitis5 hours ago5 comments

billfor3 hours ago
Clearly the Economist and their panel of experts.
- camillomiller2 hours ago
  So basically the same 5 men, considering that the Economist is the mouthpiece of the capitalist global oligarchy
comrade12342 hours ago
No Chinese? Guess they're no good at ai.
judahmeek31 minutes ago
https://ai-2027.com does a solid job of demonstrating the existential risk of the singularity. If it is actually approaching, we need leaders who will give potential black swan events the severe caution they are due.
I sure hope the theoretical timeline is compressed because the singularity under Donald Trump likely means that we're all dead due to misalignment.
gizmodo593 hours ago
“Insider is supported by ANTHROPIC“ get their money and act like independent? What a joke
saltyoldman5 hours ago
The countries that they're in already do via the law. No one else should "control" someone.
- rgbrgb3 hours ago
  to be fair, that's exactly what's at issue. controlling AI implies controlling society as intelligence scales.
- rolph5 hours ago
  no one should have to control some one, until they become a threat.
  when someone presents a threat, at large, they have limited entitlement to walk among society, or act without review.
  - JumpCrisscross3 hours ago
    > no one should have to control some one, until they become a threat
    The Helots were a threat to Spartans. Black Haitians to the French. Jews to the Reich.
    Threats feel like a reasonable reason to reduce another’s rights. But they turn out to be the most usual way of tricking oneself into becoming a monster.
    gobdovan2 hours ago
    I am starting to believe a significant number of humans run a computation that goes something like this: "Can I control AI? Will I meet people that control AI personally? If no, why would I care if they're treated unfairly in the abstract? Most important thing for me is they don't affect my resources in any way. They're better off than most either way, if anything not willingly reducing their power shows greed and confirms they're threats."
    JumpCrisscross2 hours ago
    I interpret it more generously. When a pet or a child misbehaves, we constrain their behavior. For most people, I’d guess that’s the majority of bad behavior they come across in daily life. (When adults misbehave, one usually distances or confronts. The latter isn’t an option for a difficult-to-reach public figure. And some of these figures make distancing difficult, too.)
    monknomo3 hours ago
    Are you comparing the ai ceos to helots? I am confused
    rolph22 minutes ago
    i fixed that for you:
    "The Spartans were a threat to Helots. the French to Black Haitians. the reich to the Jews."
    justification, doesnt transform a victim into a threat.
    npfo-hn3 hours ago
    Congratulations! You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust! You just equated the idea that there should be some democratic restrictions based on corporate activity with death camps that murdered millions!
    You win the "most HN post of the month" award. Never change, HN. Never change.
    npfo-hn2 hours ago
    "Jews to the Reich."
    Yes they did.
    JumpCrisscross2 hours ago
    > You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust!
    On the most surface level, sure. Regulating something and controlling someone are, to me, different motivations.
    operatingthetan2 hours ago
    >You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust!
    They literally did not.
- bigyabai5 hours ago
  The law is only relevant insofar as it's enforced. In America, that's a tossup.
  - SilentM682 hours ago
    Good point. People do not think of a scenario where one billionaire might decide to take their wealth and resources and hunker down on a dictator-controlled country where extradition does not apply, that person could easily experiment and create an AI that may not necessarily see us as relevant to their existence.
    I probably won't be able to respond to this comment since some people on this forum have flagged my comments as inappropriate thus limiting the number of daily posts I can make :)