Multiple tech companies now are openly claiming to be working on developing AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).
At the same time, as written in a lot of work on AGI (See SuperIntelligence, as an example), if any firm does establish sufficient dominance in AGI, they might have some really powerful capabilities.
- Write bots that could convince (some) people to do almost anything
- Hack into government weapons systems
- Dominate vital parts of the economy
- Find ways to interrupt other efforts to make AGI
And yet, from what I can tell, almost no one seems to really mind? Goverments, in particular, seem really chill with it.
If some company were to make a claim like,
"Were building advanced capabilities that can hack and modify any computer on the planet"
or,
"Were building a private nuclear arsenal",
Id expect that to draw attention.
But with AGI, crickets.
I assume that governments dismiss corporate claims of AGI development as overconfident marketing-speak or something.
You might think,
"But concerns about AGI are really remote and niche. State actors wouldnt have come across them."
That argument probably applied 10 years ago. But at this point, the conversation has spread a whole lot. Superintelligence was released in 2014 and was a NYT bestseller. There are hundreds of books out now about concerns about increasing AI capabilities. Elon Musk and Bill Gates both talked about it publicy. This should be one of the easiest social issues at this point for someone technically savvy to find.
The risks and dangers (of a large power-grab, not of alignment failures, though those too) are really straightforward and have been public for a long time.
Via Ozzie Gooen
At the same time, as written in a lot of work on AGI (See SuperIntelligence, as an example), if any firm does establish sufficient dominance in AGI, they might have some really powerful capabilities.
- Write bots that could convince (some) people to do almost anything
- Hack into government weapons systems
- Dominate vital parts of the economy
- Find ways to interrupt other efforts to make AGI
And yet, from what I can tell, almost no one seems to really mind? Goverments, in particular, seem really chill with it.
If some company were to make a claim like,
"Were building advanced capabilities that can hack and modify any computer on the planet"
or,
"Were building a private nuclear arsenal",
Id expect that to draw attention.
But with AGI, crickets.
I assume that governments dismiss corporate claims of AGI development as overconfident marketing-speak or something.
You might think,
"But concerns about AGI are really remote and niche. State actors wouldnt have come across them."
That argument probably applied 10 years ago. But at this point, the conversation has spread a whole lot. Superintelligence was released in 2014 and was a NYT bestseller. There are hundreds of books out now about concerns about increasing AI capabilities. Elon Musk and Bill Gates both talked about it publicy. This should be one of the easiest social issues at this point for someone technically savvy to find.
The risks and dangers (of a large power-grab, not of alignment failures, though those too) are really straightforward and have been public for a long time.
Via Ozzie Gooen
Multiple tech companies now are openly claiming to be working on developing AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).
At the same time, as written in a lot of work on AGI (See SuperIntelligence, as an example), if any firm does establish sufficient dominance in AGI, they might have some really powerful capabilities.
- Write bots that could convince (some) people to do almost anything
- Hack into government weapons systems
- Dominate vital parts of the economy
- Find ways to interrupt other efforts to make AGI
And yet, from what I can tell, almost no one seems to really mind? Goverments, in particular, seem really chill with it.
If some company were to make a claim like,
"We're building advanced capabilities that can hack and modify any computer on the planet"
or,
"We're building a private nuclear arsenal",
I'd expect that to draw attention.
But with AGI, crickets.
I assume that governments dismiss corporate claims of AGI development as overconfident marketing-speak or something.
You might think,
"But concerns about AGI are really remote and niche. State actors wouldn't have come across them."
That argument probably applied 10 years ago. But at this point, the conversation has spread a whole lot. Superintelligence was released in 2014 and was a NYT bestseller. There are hundreds of books out now about concerns about increasing AI capabilities. Elon Musk and Bill Gates both talked about it publicy. This should be one of the easiest social issues at this point for someone technically savvy to find.
The risks and dangers (of a large power-grab, not of alignment failures, though those too) are really straightforward and have been public for a long time.
Via Ozzie Gooen
0 Comments
0 Shares
550 Views
