I got the notification that my subscription to The Argument renewed this weekend.
Writers that I respected had left major publications and absconded to Substack before but I had always felt a little bit weird about paying for a single writer.
Subscribing to a magazine, however, was a lot more palatable, and it's gratifying reflecting on how many compelling articles came from writers that I had not been exposed to before. The Argument pretty quickly rose into the piece of media that I value reading the most every day.
The Argument ended up breaking the dam and actually getting me on Substack for individual writers (for better and sometimes for worse) but the reminder that it's been a year made me reflect that I am easily getting more than my subscription's worth.
Honestly, this isn’t a hard question. Prosecute the people that set the AIs up to it. It was humans who had the idea to give the AIs the task, and trained them to be persistent. The humans involved with building these AIs are openly aware of the risks they pose.
This is negligence. It’s something we already have a very well known and widely used legal framework for.
I'd hate to be the monster on a jury voting to lock them up, though. They'd cry they never meant to cause in harm, they were trying to stop the AI, they thought they had sufficient safety guards in place, and I'd weep in sympathy and vote "Not Guilty".
Snap! I was just making this point in response to Joshua Gans. Strict, joint and several liability for all humans in the process, from AI designers to the person who pressed send on the prompt.
[The U.S. Army has announced plans to add nuclear microreactors to military bases]
I want to believe it, but I'll celebrate when one microreactor on any base is actually operating. Otherwise it's just the eternal Trump promise, "two weeks away".
Contemplating mere tweaks to the law would make sense if AI agents were going to remain at their current level of capability for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, AI capabilities are a moving target with a quantifiable track record of extremely rapid improvement.
In other words, today’s agent swarms hacking into companies are tomorrow’s superintelligences taking over all of society—what better way could there be for an agent to ensure that it passes its evaluation?
It’s time to wake up to the emergency we’re in and advocate for strict controls on the training of more powerful models.
I think Jerusalem's post hints at a better path - OAI should be held criminally and civilly liable for lawbreaking enacted by it's digital creations. That's honestly the only surefire way to ensure they actually take safety seriously.
I got the notification that my subscription to The Argument renewed this weekend.
Writers that I respected had left major publications and absconded to Substack before but I had always felt a little bit weird about paying for a single writer.
Subscribing to a magazine, however, was a lot more palatable, and it's gratifying reflecting on how many compelling articles came from writers that I had not been exposed to before. The Argument pretty quickly rose into the piece of media that I value reading the most every day.
The Argument ended up breaking the dam and actually getting me on Substack for individual writers (for better and sometimes for worse) but the reminder that it's been a year made me reflect that I am easily getting more than my subscription's worth.
Thanks for all the hard work!
Honestly, this isn’t a hard question. Prosecute the people that set the AIs up to it. It was humans who had the idea to give the AIs the task, and trained them to be persistent. The humans involved with building these AIs are openly aware of the risks they pose.
This is negligence. It’s something we already have a very well known and widely used legal framework for.
I'd hate to be the monster on a jury voting to lock them up, though. They'd cry they never meant to cause in harm, they were trying to stop the AI, they thought they had sufficient safety guards in place, and I'd weep in sympathy and vote "Not Guilty".
Shrug. Intention doesn’t really come into it wrt negligence.
There would be 11 other jurors.
Snap! I was just making this point in response to Joshua Gans. Strict, joint and several liability for all humans in the process, from AI designers to the person who pressed send on the prompt.
[The U.S. Army has announced plans to add nuclear microreactors to military bases]
I want to believe it, but I'll celebrate when one microreactor on any base is actually operating. Otherwise it's just the eternal Trump promise, "two weeks away".
Contemplating mere tweaks to the law would make sense if AI agents were going to remain at their current level of capability for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, AI capabilities are a moving target with a quantifiable track record of extremely rapid improvement.
In other words, today’s agent swarms hacking into companies are tomorrow’s superintelligences taking over all of society—what better way could there be for an agent to ensure that it passes its evaluation?
It’s time to wake up to the emergency we’re in and advocate for strict controls on the training of more powerful models.
I think Jerusalem's post hints at a better path - OAI should be held criminally and civilly liable for lawbreaking enacted by it's digital creations. That's honestly the only surefire way to ensure they actually take safety seriously.