
US Commerce Dept. proposes vast new export control restrictions on AI - bufo
https://twitter.com/R_D/status/1064509831309156352
======
existencebox
Can someone tell me why I shouldn't be as worried about this as it sounds? I
haven't forgotten the crypto export restriction debacle. Why are we walking
back into that garbage fire, but N times over?

I could very well see this as being one of those "will never see the light of
day out of a congressional subcomittee" situations but I'm somewhat surprised
at the complete lack of discussion on the topic.

~~~
tropo
I don't think anybody actually likes export control restrictions, but do you
have a better idea for how we might keep this technology away from foreign
governments? It appears that the only thing worse than export control
restrictions is all the alternatives.

~~~
existencebox
I have patents and publications in multiple of the spaces listed under that
whitepaper. And honestly? I don't WANT to keep it away from foreign
governments. I don't think you could succeed, mind you, none of what I work on
is complex enough to avoid a black box reinvention, but in trying to wall off
the information transfer you'd see the whole slew of negative externalities as
we saw in the aformentioned crypto regulation.

Fundamentally, I've been in no way convinced that these techs would even move
the needle sufficiently in expanded capabilities for our enemies relative to
the costs and limitations incurred by trying to fight what is, at its core,
free spread of information. (Not to mention externalities via increased
protectionism and overhead for american employees and practitioners)

Your "only thing worse is the alternative" suggests that the world should have
become concretely worse since the rollback of export restrictions in the
2000's, which if you remember the arbitrary and spurious limitations to
consumer software under the guise of "protection" prior in the same light I
do, certainly didn't happen.

~~~
tropo
Another alternative that I'm sure you'd hate: we consider that category of
information to be "born classified", just as we do for some nuclear warfare
secrets. When you file for your patent, you are told that the patent is
classified and you must immediately turn over all copies of the information
that you have.

There are lots of heavy-handed miserable ways to deal with the problem. It
seems you prefer to think there isn't a problem ("don't WANT to keep it away
from foreign governments") and/or just give up hope ("don't think you could
succeed"), but lots of people disagree with you. Be thankful that stronger
measures aren't being proposed.

I know you aren't appreciative, but the restrictions are intended to be for
your benefit.

~~~
existencebox
"the restrictions are intended to be for your benefit."

This gives me small comfort; since as much as I'm loathe to quote Reagan, "The
most terrifying words in the English language..."

Yes, I am thankful we don't live an an even more authoritarian state. That
doesn't mean I won't strive, advocate, and fight for one both less iron fisted
and more open than the alternative you propose.

(Bluntly as well, you haven't done much to convince me WHY they should be
needed, nor rebut my precedent re: crypto regulation, so an appeal to
authority isn't a strong argument; it's quite the reducto-ad-absurdum to
compare much of the whitepaper list in the OP to "nuclear secrets" in terms of
potential risks, and even moreso, seems to support my stance, in that
restriction on nuclear secrets has canonically NOT stopped our enemies)

~~~
tropo
The world has what, maybe a dozen countries with nuclear weapons after 7
decades? I think the restrictions have worked very very well, especially
considering just how desirable nuclear weapons are.

The "why" is pretty simple. Technology leads to the rise and fall of nations.
There is a huge benefit to the people of a nation when their nation has a
technology advantage. This applies both in war and in peace.

Like it or not, each nation is fiercely competing with every other nation. The
relative degree of winning or losing determines the level of prosperity.
Technology is unavoidably a part of this. It can't be just set aside. You're
part of a team (with your fellow citizens) and you are expected to avoid
helping the other teams win.

~~~
existencebox
First: Having nuclear weapons is, for the most part, highly undesirable in a
modern geopolitical context, for anyone but a few rogue states. (the ones who
fit into the small niche of wanting the tech and having little to lose can
trivially achieve it and regularly use it to play the superpowers like a
fiddle, see Iran, NKorea, and Pakistan to a lesser extent) In the current
world order most small countries would much rather rely on a superpower to
"have their back" than attract the undue attention and costs of developing
their own nuclear power. (and probably force-of-international-law as well,
likely a far more powerful lever in terms of nation state behavior than lack
of technology transfer, especially seeing how one can find most of what used
to be "nuclear secrets" on the web or via "nation-state-IP-transfer")

"you are expected to avoid helping the other teams win."

This to me describes most of, and most of the darkest, parts and mindsets of
human history. Hard as it may seem to believe there's another path, I refuse
to resign myself to a nationalist mindset.

And honestly? The short term matters so little to me, outside of selfish
concerns. Over the next few thousand years superpowers will come and go
entirely regardless of what silly code I write. "winners" and "losers" will be
chosen on tectonic scales. But if perhaps a slight bit of increased
communication can move human progress forward as a whole over the next
millenia? I'll risk much for that goal.

Frankly, I don't see technology as the differentiator you think it is. Overall
economic horsepower, yes. Technology, no. Back in the day, the Germans had
jets before we did. Better rifles, at the start. Better tanks, too. In the
same way, some AI models likely won't make or break a future conflict. The
ability to have 300 million people turn their hands to war will.

I'd keep hammering the point as well, that we _have factually loosened crypto
restrictions_ and the world has not ended; in fact we've gotten far better
consumer crypto utilization that have canonically improved our access to new
capabilities, tools and products, and our "great enemies" from the days of
restriction aren't suddenly more empowered to talk behind our backs. The whole
effort was moot.

