The countries that they're in already do via the law. No one else should "control" someone.
bigyabai•3h ago
The law is only relevant insofar as it's enforced. In America, that's a tossup.
SilentM68•41m ago
Good point. People do not think of a scenario where one billionaire might decide to take their wealth and resources and hunker down on a dictator-controlled country where extradition does not apply, that person could easily experiment and create an AI that may not necessarily see us as relevant to their existence.
I probably won't be able to respond to this comment since some people on this forum have flagged my comments as inappropriate thus limiting the number of daily posts I can make :)
rolph•3h ago
no one should have to control some one, until they become a threat.
when someone presents a threat, at large, they have limited entitlement to walk among society, or act without review.
JumpCrisscross•1h ago
> no one should have to control some one, until they become a threat
The Helots were a threat to Spartans. Black Haitians to the French. Jews to the Reich.
Threats feel like a reasonable reason to reduce another’s rights. But they turn out to be the most usual way of tricking oneself into becoming a monster.
monknomo•1h ago
Are you comparing the ai ceos to helots? I am confused
npfo-hn•1h ago
Congratulations! You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust! You just equated the idea that there should be some democratic restrictions based on corporate activity with death camps that murdered millions!
You win the "most HN post of the month" award.
Never change, HN. Never change.
operatingthetan•1h ago
>You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust!
They literally did not.
npfo-hn•1h ago
"Jews to the Reich."
Yes they did.
JumpCrisscross•1h ago
> You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust!
On the most surface level, sure. Regulating something and controlling someone are, to me, different motivations.
gobdovan•1h ago
I am starting to believe a significant number of humans run a computation that goes something like this: "Can I control AI? Will I meet people that control AI personally? If no, why would I care if they're treated unfairly in the abstract? Most important thing for me is they don't affect my resources in any way. They're better off than most either way, if anything not willingly reducing their power shows greed and confirms they're threats."
JumpCrisscross•1h ago
I interpret it more generously. When a pet or a child misbehaves, we constrain their behavior. For most people, I’d guess that’s the majority of bad behavior they come across in daily life. (When adults misbehave, one usually distances or confronts. The latter isn’t an option for a difficult-to-reach public figure. And some of these figures make distancing difficult, too.)
rgbrgb•1h ago
to be fair, that's exactly what's at issue. controlling AI implies controlling society as intelligence scales.
billfor•1h ago
Clearly the Economist and their panel of experts.
camillomiller•1h ago
So basically the same 5 men, considering that the Economist is the mouthpiece of the capitalist global oligarchy
gizmodo59•1h ago
“Insider is supported by
ANTHROPIC“ get their money and act like independent? What a joke
saltyoldman•3h ago
bigyabai•3h ago
SilentM68•41m ago
I probably won't be able to respond to this comment since some people on this forum have flagged my comments as inappropriate thus limiting the number of daily posts I can make :)
rolph•3h ago
when someone presents a threat, at large, they have limited entitlement to walk among society, or act without review.
JumpCrisscross•1h ago
The Helots were a threat to Spartans. Black Haitians to the French. Jews to the Reich.
Threats feel like a reasonable reason to reduce another’s rights. But they turn out to be the most usual way of tricking oneself into becoming a monster.
monknomo•1h ago
npfo-hn•1h ago
You win the "most HN post of the month" award. Never change, HN. Never change.
operatingthetan•1h ago
They literally did not.
npfo-hn•1h ago
Yes they did.
JumpCrisscross•1h ago
On the most surface level, sure. Regulating something and controlling someone are, to me, different motivations.
gobdovan•1h ago
JumpCrisscross•1h ago
rgbrgb•1h ago