The point under contention was whether AI can be controlled and whether the state of control of nuclear weapons is proof of that. I have given multiple examples that prove that even though nuclear weapons have only been used twice on humans, we are very very far from a stable control state. If that is the level of control you think is going to prevent terrible results from AI, I'm not going to trust you with anything serious. Dismissing the Cuban Missile Crisis as 'control was maintained' is insane; it came down to one guy making a judgment call.

Let's forget about your bad analogy. If you're such a worker, then give me an actual way in which we are going to control AI and let's see how well thought out it is.

It may be a false pretext, but it still 'plays': If nukes weren't so scary, there would be no justification accepted by a large part of the various electorates. The Iraq war was also waged because of 'WMD's.

The point was and is about how 'controlled' the 'genie' of nuclear weapons is, how we needn't worry about them anymore. The reality is that they are very much still one of the biggest risks of destroying humanity and very much a worry for all.

It may be a false pretext, but it still 'plays': If nukes weren't so scary, there would be no justification accepted by a large part of the various electorates. The Iraq war was also waged because of 'WMD's. I suppose you'd call the European leadership that got roped into it similarly staggeringly uninformed.

Exactly. A better test would be to let Mythos and the other systems loose on an older pre-fixes commit of the codebase and compare their results.

No, you're attacking a straw man.

You said that "the genie can be controlled", nothing about an actual nuclear attack or nuclear hellscape. You were stating that the way we have approached nuclear weapons is proof that AI will not cause issues if we do our best to control it. I gave examples of why that is a grave overstatement. I'll give you another example: The Cuban Missile Crisis. That is reality. Something that happened and got us very very close to your nuclear hellscape. We got lucky, nothing more.

The NPT was pretty much ripped up with all the important players not giving a fuck and definitely not refraining from launching nukes because "we're controlling nukes".

If you think the world is going to come together to curtail AI development you are delusional, especially given the current state of the world and how it is developing.

There is an ongoing war that is crippling economies worldwide specifically to prevent one nation from getting one nuclear weapon. There is another war where the mere threat of using nuclear weapons has caused the entire Western World from properly protecting an ally against stealing land and heinous war crimes in the act of doing so.

That is not 'controlled', my friend. That is teetering on the edge of disaster.

Yeah, remember these are humanities students who just graduated, though. Some of their chosen majors devalued from "decent chances at a good job" when they started to "total waste of money and time" at the end.

Yes, there are definitely many potential issues still left and some of them are moving faster than I previously expected.

The efforts of Ukraine in their defense against Russia's aggression are valiant and heartening in the context of that war, but with it they are also stepping very hard on the dystopian pedal of creating autonomous, effective, easily and cheaply produced, killer aerial and ground drones. We're not quite at full robot wars yet, but we are close, with UGVs with guns mounted on them performing assaults without any human supporting units. UAVs with shotguns are also a thing (although mainly used air-to-air). Last-mile AI targeting is under heavy development. Full robot on robot wars are years, not decades away.

The bipedal bots are also advancing way faster than I thought they would. The Unitree bots are simply incredible when it comes to agility, easily surpassing humans in a bunch of disciplines where manual dexterity isn't required. Having said that, those currently can't deal with a lot of payload. I believe it's well sub 10kg and even then the durability of the joints is quite questionable. The capabilities of the quadruped bots like the Unitree B2 and the wheeled B2-W are really scary though: Fast, agile (even on very rough terrain), and capable of carrying serious payloads.

Imagining an ASI being able to gain control of armies of bots is harrowing. The main blocker currently would be the lack of automation of the production of more of the bots, which is undoubtedly not going to be around for a long time, alas.

The ASI-angle is actually very interesting here: One of the ways it could dominate mankind is via a stranglehold on key infrastructure through exploiting vulnerabilities in software. We seem to be moving into a state where all software will have been quite thoroughly vetted by ever more capable AI models.

It might be that all the exploitable bugs will have been removed by the time ASI arrives. It's a pretty big hypothetical (ASI being ASI), but it will certainly not be ASI against the Swiss cheese that currently is almost all pre-AI-hardened software. The biggest problem might be key infrastructure software/hardware that is already badly maintained and in an 'unupdateable' state, exploitable in perpetuity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The EU has been very, very pro free markets. It is a very important part of why it even exists and has made it economically stronger and more prosperous via opening up markets of various European countries to each other and presenting itself as a unified trade partner. Thankfully, the tide is turning here.

It is important to remember that the EU is not at the level of unification or homogeneity that the US is. Member states are still struggling to work together and for many of them the relationship with the US is closer than with a lot of the other member states.

Even now, in the face of Russian, Chinese and now American aggression many of the people of the member states do not feel the urgency to act as a unified bloc. They're more concerned with manifesting their populist-induced xenophobia for immigrants and hating the EU as an institution. They call it the EUSSR, blaming it for everything they don't like (including said immigrants) and screaming for 'sovereignty', for 'taking their country back'. You know the type. Ironically, these people also use instances where the EU is 'toothless' as proof that it should be abolished, completely missing that it requires giving up more sovereignty to make the EU more effective in these cases. Politicians with the right ideas have been dealing with island-thinkers like these for quite a while now and have been losing ground to the people who feed the shortsightedness.

So it's not "insane", but rather "unfortunate" that the EU stands where it does. It turns out that even if people have almost everything a human could wish, there is still selfishness and shortsightedness in many, preventing effective cooperation from making things better for everyone.

If you need some kind of worldwide multizone setup, then you're probably right. For government services provided in countries for their citizens, you do not need that.

As a Slashdotter, you should know that on the software side there is a shitload of open source tooling available. The rest is a matter of running and managing a bunch of servers, not rocket science, not something that takes decades to build.

Creating a market only accessible to European companies via this kind of legislation means they can't get outcompeted or bought by the big boys (which is a large reason why no European alternatives exist yet).

Must be the way of thinking that only ruthless exploitation and/or suffering can lead to success.
It is a way to rationalize and justify the suffering. If not for success, then why all the hardship?

Nobody revolting? Are you kidding?

They posted more than 100 angry and surprised emoji! The Meta execs must have been shaking in their boots when they heard that!

Cute.