Trump rejects call by CEOs of Anthropic, OpenAI and xAI to slow AI down | Hacker News Reader

Trump rejects call by CEOs of Anthropic, OpenAI and xAI to slow AI down

yahoo.com

thats a play. A wants something. B actually agree, but cant agree openly. C say regulate, hold A responsible for problems, etc. the play beginns:

A wants more ressources and less regulation. Strong C make problems. B cant take position and free ressources, because C is strong and becoming stronger. A starts to make dangerous things. C is becomes even more opponent. A say ok, we need to slow down - then comes in B. Now B cant take position openly and say NO to slow down with reasons xx, yy. C is now weaker, because B can push and make C bigger problems. With C silenced and opposed by B who protects A, A can start to progress without C making problems, because B now supporting A and silences C.

C is like people who are against in any shape, be it against data centers, against copyright violations, etc..

B is WHG

A is AI companies

Lots of words easily replaced by Grift.

They need to bribe him more to get their regulatory capture.

A few thoughts: I support AI acceleration to reach abundance and then and only then start regulating it, not before that.

Regulating early means just delaying abundance by 5 to 10 more years or maybe more.

I don't like to build something that will become useless due to AI after a few years. Let it advance to ASI (no need to release publicly) and then let everybody think about making it safe and aligned, then release.

I'm that simple.

What do you think?

Genuine question, because "abundance" is meaningless unless you qualify what you mean.

You're saying that we ask the ASI for "abundance" and everyone gets a mansion in silicon valley and doesn't need to work unless they want to? That doesn't seem like a realistic thing to be thinking about.

Interesting thought.

My view is that ASI could be created and benchmarked to know that it reached that level of intelligence.

Once we have that, we must sit to talk about abundance to define where to implement it and at what rate in full details.

It's like creating the magic tool to do anything, but we decide what to do with it.

But that is the ideal state that may seem far away, only time will tell how far it is.

I see it not that far due to this simple fact: AI is learning human experiences.

Note: this needs fully functioning robotics as well (software + hardware level intelligence).

What if under the no-pause scenario within a couple of years we get cures for N diseases each one of which affects tens or hundreds of millions of people every year - how many years would you wait and keep your hand on the pause button?

Couldn't we just break the pause button? so it is not usable?!

Not pausing means more people knowing truths of everything faster in this world.

One of them, that I'm very excited about, is science & research.

How do you think that AI will create "abundance?" Are you thinking that it will somehow magically come up with solutions to climate change, war, corruption, the wealth gap, or any of the other ills that keep the majority of humanity scrambling to survive? Or do you just mean abundance for stockholders?

Very little ‘magic’ seems necessary for those, rather a little less human-in-the-loop team sports with our future, and a little more feedback loop science.

Self-selected ignorance and scrambling seem both correlated and causative.

That said, SOTA machines can't run an office snack bar yet, so it'll be a minute before abundances other than caution.

This hits hard.

I believe that because AI is learning human experiences, it will help with verifiable work.

Anything that can have outcomes or metrics well defined as true success criteria will enable AI to be able to help easier than other tasks (like writing). The easier the outcomes or metrics definition needed for success in a field, the better and faster we will see AI help in those fields.

The big example is coding.

Nothing prevents competition like letting the top players in a field write their own regulation.

A bunch of spherical bastards, the lot of 'em.

I think that a chance of getting things like material post-scarcity, age reversal, possibly even biological immortality... might be worth a 10% chance of human extinction.

I mean, we already know more or less how things are going to go without super-intelligence. Disease, pain, suffering, everyone dying by age 120 or so, more struggle for bread, more wars about things that seem very important in the moment but won't be interesting to anyone other than history buffs 100 years from now, more love affairs that feel intensely personal but are basically the same as billions of other love affairs that people have had, etc.

Maybe it makes sense to take a risk.

I'm not sure if everyone is aware, but humanity is heading for extinction either way. My guess is that like with death most people just choose to not think about it. We don't even have to wait for the heat death of the universe. Our sun will eventually die and when that happens Earth will be shredded to tiny bits and pieces. That's about five billion years into the future, but humanity will be long extinct before that happens.

The species that is around for the longest that we know of is only about 200 million years old (Triops cancriformis). For mammals it's even less with about 130 million years, but that one is already extinct (Multituberculata).

Everything has a lifespan, including species, this planet, the sun and the universe.

But nevermind these far off events. It's been a while since I checked, but the same way the Earth moves around the sun, the sun and our entire solar system are moving, too. And based on records found if you dig deep into the Earth and analyze the dirt it seems that about every I don't remember how many thousand years we move through a part of the universe with a lot of rocks. It's called an extinction event, but humanity has barely survived it at least once. Imagine not one, but a few thousand asteroids hitting the Earth. Per hour. For a couple of weeks straight. Seems like we came up with a few names for that. Like Ragnarok, Armageddon, Apocalypse, ...

It feels there is a bit of contradiction in your post. You posit love, struggle and basically the current human experience as meaningless and yet you pitch biological immortality.

How would we spend this immortality? Seems good to have this sorted out before gambling everything on it.

> Maybe it makes sense to take a risk.

Holy shit, society needs to eat people like this. We're all being driven off a cliff by insanely naive tech bros.

We're all being impacted by the decisions of a few people. World altering stuff, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. I can only observe these crazy comments from HN and wait for it all to fall apart. It's maddening.

Dario: Mr. Trump, we don't want to advance anymore, but China very bad, if we stop, China take over. Please stop China, then we rest.

Trump: you're not in the EU, get to work.

Jokes aside, I'm very happy that Dario's attempts at smuggling regulatory capture by appeasing Trump with China has ended with a cold shower.

SHOCK!

We are very fortunate that Trump is president for these specific years, probably the most significant years of all human history.

Trump rejecting Dario's call for regulatory capture. Speaker Johnson saying publicly Congress is less qualified than big tech so they should meet and establish safety rules among themselves.

I wish every day brought so much sanity from politicians.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com