But it's slowly getting there. Researchers will keep trying to infer as much of your cognitive processes as possible. This is a small step towards that, and not even the first one (which is over 10 years old, I think), but should not be dismissed so lightly. It won't go fast, because every step is a small one, but at one point you're going to have to say "Well, it's too late now. There's no going back anymore. Sorry!"
I’m not sure it’s feasible to stop things like this.
You can try to implement global prohibitions, but our species has a pretty bad track record at that unless the thing we are prohibiting is a stable equilibrium in game theory (anybody who can pay to play wants to stay in the equilibrium).
AI is still expensive, but it’s not so expensive that only megacorps and nation states can pay-to-play. To fully stop this kind of development, you’ll need to convince everyone with the means in every society to stop tinkering with this stuff.
I personally think we’ve crossed the threshold where inspired hackers in their basements can build nifty things with this with or without your sanction. You might be able to slow progress, but there will still be a black market of knowledge and implementations that continues pushing this forward. Not just because it’s profitable, but because it’s fascinating too.
Nuclear (mostly) requires megacorp or nation state funding and most players are in an equilibrium for now. Supply chains for nuclear are feasible to detect and control by existing players who want to keep the equilibrium.
When you look at markets with relatively low barriers to entry compared to nuclear with correspondingly high recreational and/or market value - humans have faired far worse at effective prohibitions.
Alcohol and other drugs. Illegal porn. Explosives. Sharing copyrighted material. Guns. Buying and selling humans. Cryptography. Etc.
Hop on any Silk Road replacement and you’ll find a nice list of failing prohibitions.
I do believe AI falls into the bucket of having a feasible black market. The supply chains are hard to detect and control. The cost is relatively low. And both the recreational and market value of it is high. It seems like something humans are going to do at this point regardless of whether it’s sanctioned or not.
Ahh, I see what you mean but none of that takes heavy R&D.
Suggesting minimal barriers to entry seems like wishful thinking at this point. Sure, the average CS student should be able to write a pathfinding algorithm etc, but people who want to restrict types of AI research have a higher bar in mind.
Put a moratorium on publications. It cuts off the oxygen. Most research is done for publications. You need them for tenure and grants. And it stops propagation.
This result is not meaningfully different from things that have been done with MRI 10 or so years ago. Why do you think it’s getting there? I see this field not moving forward in any meaningful way.
