Why? Getting to "the future" isn't a goal in and of itself. It's just a different state with a different set of problems, some of which we've proven that we're not prepared to anticipate or respond to before they cause serious harm.
I hope you wouldn't advocate for requiring a license to buy more than one GPU, or to publish or read papers about mathematical concepts. Do you want the equivalent of nuclear arms control for AI? Some other words to describe that are overclassification, export control and censorship.
We've been down this road with crypto, encryption, clipper chips, etc. There is only one non-authoritarian answer to the debate: Software wants to be free.
In general the liberal position of progress = good is wrong in many cases, and I'll be thankful to see AI get neutered. If anything treat it like nuclear arms and have the world come up with heavy regulation.
Not even touching the fact it is quite literal copyright laundering and a massive wealth transfer to the top (two things we pass laws protecting against often), but the danger it poses to society is worth a blanket ban. The upsides aren't there.
Only because we know the risks and issues with them.
OP is talking about furthering technology, which is quite literally "discovering new things"; regulations on furthering technology (outside of literal nuclear weapons) would have to be along the lines of "you must submit your idea for approval to the US government before using it in a non-academic context if could be interpreted as industry-changing or inventing", which means anyone with ideas will just move to a country that doesn't hinder its own technological progress.
ha, the big difference is that this whole list can actually affect the ultra wealthy. AI has the power to make them entirely untouchable one day, so good luck seeing any kind of regulation happen here.
As technology advances, such prohibitions are going to become less and less effective.
Tech is constantly getting smaller, cheaper and easier for a random person or group of people to acquire, no matter what the laws say.
Add in the nearly infinite profit and power motive to get hold of strong AI and it'll almost impossible to stop, as governments, billionaires, and megacorps all over the world will see it as a massive competitive disadvantage not to have one.
Make laws against it in one place, your competitor in another part of the world without such laws or their effective enforcement will dominate you before long.
All those examples put us in physical danger to the point of death.
If only.
There's a story told by Pliny in the 1st century. An inventor came up with shatter-proof glass, he was very proud, and the emperor called him up to see it. They hit it with a hammer and it didn't break! The inventor expected huge rewards - and then the emperor had him beheaded because it would disrupt the Roman glass industry and possibly devalue metals. This story is probably apocryphal but it shows Roman values very well - this story was about what a wise emperor Tiberius was! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_glass
chemical and biological weapons / human cloning / export restriction / trade embargoes / nuclear rockets / phage therapy / personal nuclear power
I mean.. the list goes on forever, but my point is that humanity pretty routinely reduces research efforts in specific areas.
Oh, a number. Medicine is the biggest field - human trials have to follow ethics these days:
- the times of Mengele-style "experiments" on inmates or the infamous Tuskeegee syphilis study are long past
- we can clone sheep for like what, 2 decades now, but IIRC haven't even begun chimpanzees, much less humans
- same for gene editing (especially in germlines), which is barely beginning in human despite being common standard for lab rats and mice. Anything impacting the germ line... I'm not sure if this will become anywhere close to acceptable in my life time.
- pre-implantation genetic based discarding of embryos is still widely (and for good reason...) seen as unethical
Another big area is, ironically given that militaries usually want ever deadlier toys, the military:
- a lot of European armies and, from the Cold War era on mostly Russia and America, have developed a shit ton of biological and chemical weapons of war. Development on that has slowed to a crawl and so did usage, at least until Assad dropped that shit on his own population in Syria, and Russia occasionally likes to murder dissidents.
- nuclear weapons have been rarely tested for decades now, with the exception of North Korea, despite there being obvious potential for improvement or civilian use (e.g. in putting out oil well fires).
Humanity, at least sometimes, seems to be able to keep itself in check, but only if the potential of suffering is just too extreme.
I feel like I'm in a time warp and we're back in 1993 or so on /. Software doesn't want anything and the people claim that technological progress is always good dream themselves to be the beneficiaries of that progress regardless of the effects on others, even if those are negative.
As for the intentional limits on technological progress: there are so many examples of this that I wonder why you would claim that we haven't done that in the past.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free
Every time an IRB, ERB, IEC, or REB says no. Do you want an exact date and time? I'm sure it happens multiple times a day even.
You should read "when in human history" in larger time scales than minutes, hours, and days. Furthermore, you should read it not as binary (no progress or all progress), but the general arc is technological progression.
They are pacifists themselves, but they are grateful that the US allows them their way of life, they'll be extinct a long time ago if they arrived in China/Middle East/Russia etc.
That's why the Amish are not interested in advertising their techno-primitivism. It works incredibly well for them, they raise giant happy families isolated from drugs, family breakdown, and every other modern ill, while benefiting from modern medicine, the purchasing power of their non-amish customers. However, they know that making the entire US live like them will be quite a disaster.
Note the Amish are not immune from economics forced changes either. Young amish don't farm anymore, if every family quadruples in population, there's no 4x the land to go around. So they go into construction (employers love a bunch of strong,non-drugged,non-criminal workers), which is again intensely dependent on the outside economy, but pays way better.
As a general society, the US is not allowed to slow down technological development. If not for the US, Ukraine would have already been overran, and European peace shattered. If not for the US, the war in Taiwan would have already ended, and Japan/Australia/South Korea all under Chinese thrall. There's also other more certain civilization ending events on the horizon, like resource exhaustation and climate change. AI's threats are way easier to manage than coordinating 7 billion people to selflessly sacrifice.
Nuclear weapons?
And even those tribes are not crisis stable. Bad times and it all becomes a anarchic mess. And that is were we are headed. A future were a chaotic humanity falls apart with a multi-crisis around it, while still wielding the tools of a pre crisis era. Nuclear powerplants and nukes. AIdrones wielded by ISIS.
What if a unstoppable force (exponential progress) hits a unmoveable object(humanitys retardations).. stay along for the ride.
<Choir of engineers appears to sing dangerous technologies praises>
I am currently on the outskirts of Amish country.
BTW when they come together to raise a barn it is called a frolic. I think we can learn a thing or two from them. And they certainly illustrate that alternatives are possible.
And here I always thought, people want to be free.
https://www.amazon.com/Technology-Social-Shock-Edward-Lawles...
> When in human history have we ever intentionally not furthered technological progress? It's simply an unrealistic proposition ..
We almost did with genetically engineering humans. Almost.
Termed the phrase “the Luddite fallacy” the thinking that innovation would have lasting harmful effects on employment.
The Luddites opposed injustice, not machines. They were “totally fine with machines”.
You might like Writings of the Luddites, edited and co-authored by Kevin Binfield.
Because it's the natural evolution. It has to be. It is written.
Competition, ambition?
(I love Le Guin's work, FWIW)
We gain new tools, but at the same time we lose old ones.
Which also makes a hostile AI a futile scenario. The worst AI has to do to take out the species, is lean back and do nothing. We are well under way on the way out by ourselves..
Having an edge or being ahead is, so anticipating and building the future is an advantage amongst humans but also moves civilization forward.
