Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sillprutt t1_je4dhiz wrote

The real authors of the article must have known that as soon as it was made public, the people of who they faked signatures would announce that they didn't sign it...

So what was the purpose? This was an inevitable outcome. What did they gain from this?

25

TheCrassEnnui t1_je4f2sw wrote

It sows discord and demonstrates that those in opposition to AI are not to be taken seriously. It's an effective tactic. Make the "enemies" arguments seem juvenile, out of touch, and behind the curve. I am all for legislation that sets reasonable limits on AI usage in public and private until we have a matured ethical framework to implement, but it's too late now. We don't dare fall behind China, Russia, India, the UK, Mexico, or Canada. We are on the train of progress, without brakes, going 100mph and we can't see down the track, for better or for worse.

24

tiselo3655necktaicom t1_je56yg3 wrote

It’s a classic geopolitical prisoners dilemma leading to just another arms race.

Authoritarian regimes all over the world are heavily incentivized to develop AI and AGI/ASI to further their control.

It’s going to happen all over the world independently of the US roughly simultaneously.

our only good option is to try to be first even though we don’t know what that entails lol. Strategic primacy is a binary: On top, or not.

14

NaRaGaMo t1_je6ghcg wrote

I don't think US is behind Russia, India, UK, Mexico when it comes to AI.

1

Round-Inspection7011 t1_je92pi1 wrote

There is no we... Seriously. Tech of this scale does not work like that. If an algorithm this powerful is being developed, you better believe that China, Russia and the others have easy access to it. Hell, half the devs are probably Asian.

You can't halt the train, but you sure can build better tracks. There is currently absolutely no legal framework to deal with the AI revolution.

If we need to protect our citizens there have to be rigid international contracts that outline rights and consequences.

1

maskedpaki t1_je4pfmy wrote

Im pretty sure the issue actually is that anyone can throw their name on the list and they aren't checking it.

7

JenMacAllister t1_je6hh18 wrote

China would get 6 months to take their hacked version of GPT and get it to the next level before anyone else.

3

sillprutt t1_je6ie51 wrote

Yes if you take it at face value. But they made it so obviously fake that not even the creators of the paper themselves could be stupid enough to believe it would work, so there must have been an ulterior motive to publishing it.

2

Honest_Science t1_je4egbq wrote

What makes you believe tha the signatures were faked and not, that the signees have pulled back because of some unpleasant calls from their investors? I would rather believe that nobody would have thought that this letter would create such a wave of uncertainty. It is a clear sign of total desperation because EVERYBODY knows that his will not happen.

−12

sillprutt t1_je4ewem wrote

Thats an interesting POV, very likely if they actually did sign them. But Im assuming they were faked because of the links in the OP.

2