logoalt Hacker News

stratos123today at 4:40 PM1 replyview on HN

> Suppose it was, I don't know, Australia producing SOTA open weights, because they believed it was the right thing to do for the benefits of humanity - would Dario propose making Australia a geopolitical adversary too?

I'd expect he thinks that people are capable of realizing that AI is very dangerous and also that democracies end up mostly representing the will of the people, from which it follows that Hypothetical AI Leader Australia would agree to ban it too. This argument doesn't work for countries which don't care what their citizens want, like China.

I do think that it's a questionable decision to alienate China this much in this essay, instead of leaving open the possibility of China agreeing to a treaty that'll limit their progress. I suspect Dario is doing this to signal his allegiance with the US government, in hopes to increase the chance they'll go along with him, which is an unfortunate choice but plausibly the correct one.


Replies

glubtoday at 5:32 PM

I don't think people care as much as we'd like them to care about dangers of technologies. It takes a single step outside of technological bubble to see that their opinion of SOTA LLMs is vastly different. To them, AI means ChatGPT and ChatGPT is mostly still the same ChatGPT that it was 3 years ago, with similar failure modes and nothing that would indicate it would kill them, or take their jobs even.

It's the same as it has been with privacy/cybersecurity for decades. Vast majority of population doesn't care about hypothetical dangers, no matter how many essays get published.

So democracies representing will of people doesn't really work in favor of Dario's case here.

History is also not on his side. Limiting technological progress in the name of safety has a pretty poor track record.