Tyler Cowen makes an interesting argument that there should be a non-proliferation treaty for artificial intelligence, analogous to the one for nuclear weapons:
One approach to AI risk is to treat it like nuclear weapons and also their delivery systems. Let the United States get a lead, and then hope the U.S. can (in conjunction with others) enforce “OK enough†norms on the rest of the world.
Another approach to AI risk is to try to enforce a collusive agreement amongst all nations not to proceed with AI development, at least along certain dimensions, or perhaps altogether.
The first of these two options seems obviously better to me. But I am not here to argue that point, at least not today. Conditional on accepting the superiority of the first approach, all the arguments for AI safety are arguments for AI continuationism. (And no, this doesn’t mean building a nuclear submarine without securing the hatch doors.) At least for the United States. In fact I do support a six-month AI pause — for China. Yemen too.
With the proviso that what is being referred to right now as “artificial intelligence” is a large language model full stop, I think there’s a fundamental problem with his proposal. You can’t create a nuclear weapon in your basement. If you had the fissile material, you might but getting the fissile material requires a state or an individual or group of individuals with the power of a state. AI isn’t like that.
As I’ve already said: the jinn has been released. There’s no putting it back.
I thought artificial intelligence is when a blonde dyes her hair brown?
Steve
Speaking of intelligence, it looks like the Florida surgeon general forgot to add in the data which the state had collecting showing that cardiac complications from covid were much higher than those from the vaccine. That’s the kind of thing you would want to know if you were making decisions about getting vaccinated.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2023/04/07/florida-surgeon-general-covid-19-vaccine-study-heart-problems-men/
Steve
The article stated “4†epidemiologists disputed the claims the vaccine was more responsible for heart problems than an infection. Steve is all in to shill for this new stance based on some excluded data backed by 4 doctors. However when declarations were forged and signed onto by thousands of doctors, scientists etc, world-wide, asking for the discontinuation of the vaccines because of safety concerns, he instantly took issue with their credibility.
In the meantime Dr Ladapo is standing his ground, and by the earlier guidance given, regarding the health issues posed by the vaccine.
They only cited 4. Many more have noted that Ladapo withheld information. Ladapo has an untouchable position so he can safely support practices not really supported by available evidence.
Your thousands were outweighed by the hundreds of thousands who disagreed. More importantly its not really a popularity contest and it was the literature which I used for evidence on how to practice as do most docs.
Steve