I think it's an over simplification an unwise comparison.
Everyone keeps bringing up Russia and China...they like nuclear weapons because they give them power. AI can take it away, especially if a super intelligent AI was to come into being.
Have you ever noticed how dictators like to be in control? If they actually are aware there is little chance they'd be able to control these things, they're much less likely to want them to exist.
It's just not the same type of problem. The only thing we have in common here is they can both be dangerous and cause a lot of harm, but so can fire.
This same line of reasoning is why Hinton thinks we might be able to slow things down with an international agreement, because no one wants to see things spiral into chaos. No one wins that, maybe not even the AIs.
> only thing we have in common here is they can both be dangerous and cause a lot of harm, but so can fire
I think the previous comment's point was this.
You said "if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful...[you] don't think other countries will be...eager to deploy it" [1]. The comment responding to you said there is no precedent for that. Before you get super-intelligent humanity-destroying AI you may get merely-intelligent enemy-destroying AI. If the second evolves into the first, and we don't know when, everyone is incentivized to develop the second out of military necessity.
I don't think this is true, if international co-operation can happen, not everyone will try to build these systems.
My point is, everyone sits on the internet and screams but Russia, but China, but no one really knows what they think about the situation because no serious discussions have begun.
I did see an interview with Geoffrey Hinton who says that he can see Chinese researchers are concerned, he reads it in mailing lists. In my opinion that is a good start because again, I don't think the CCP is stupid and they also have a lot of influence in the world.
My point is, trying to do nothing and maintaining the status quo won't end well either.
I think most people have just given up, climate change now this, it's too much for people.
That’s the point. For a system such as this, it cannot. That’s just reality.
It gives advantage to have it, particularly when others don’t. Its development happens in silence, making enforcement uncertain. And you don’t want to get into a shooting match without it when your enemy does.
There are options between giving up and daydreaming.
Consider: a public registry of who is working on what with which data. (Good opportunity to address the copyright question.) Working group to advise, without pomp, if there is a threat and what it might look like.
We don't have an intelligent discussion because everyone speaking has a conflict of interest or no idea what they're talking about. Maybe making public more data, hard data, will help.
