undefined | Better HN

0 pointssupriyo-biswas3y ago0 comments

People have been able to commit malicious acts by themselves historically, no AI needed.

In other words, LLMs are only as dangerous as the humans operating them, and therefore the solution is to stop crime instead of regulating AI, which only seeks to make OpenAI a monopoly.

0 comments

8 comments · 2 top-level

kypro3y ago· 4 in thread

This isn't a trick question, genuinely curious – do you agree that guns are not the problem and should not be regulated – yes, while they can be used for harm, the right approach to gun violence is to police the crime.

I think the objection to this would be that currently not everyone in the world an expert in biochemistry or at hacking into computer systems. Even if you're correct in principal, perhaps the risks of the technology we're developing here is too high? We typically regulate technologies which can easily be used to cause harm.

supriyo-biswasOP3y ago

AI systems provide many benefits to society, such as image recognition, anomaly detection, educational and programming used of LLMs, to name a few.

Guns only have a primarily harmful use which is to kill or injure someone. While that act of killing may be justified when the person violates societal values in some way, making regular citizens the decision makers in whether a certain behavior is allowed or disallowed and being able to immediately make a judgment and execute upon it leads to a sort of low-trust, vigilante environment; which is why the same argument I made above doesn’t apply for guns.

mensetmanusman3y ago

I think game theory around mutually assured destruction has convinced me that the world is a safer place when a number of countries have nuclear weapons.

The same thing might also be true in relation to guns and the government's monopoly on violence.

Extending that to AI, the world will probably be a safer place if there are far more AI systems competing with each other and in the hands of citizens.

logicchains3y ago

>whether a certain behavior is allowed or disallowed and being able to immediately make a judgment and execute upon it leads to a sort of low-trust, vigilante environment

Have you any empirical evidence at all on this? From what I've seen the open carry states in the US are generally higher trust environments (as was the US in past when more people carried). People feel safer when they know somebody can't just assault, rob or rape them without them being able to do anything to defend themselves. Is the Tenderloin a high trust environment?

tome3y ago

> do you agree that guns are not the problem and should not be regulated

But AI is not like guns in this analogy. AI is closer to machine tools.

shanebellone3y ago· 2 in thread

Regulation is the only tool for minimizing crime. Other mechanisms, such as police, respond to crime after-the-fact.

hellojesus3y ago

Aren't regulations just laws that are enforced after they're broken like other after-the-fact crimes?

shanebellone3y ago

Partially, I suppose.

The risk vs. reward component also needs to be managed in order to deter criminal behavior. This starts with regulation.

For the record, I believe regulation of AI/ML is ridiculous. This is nothing more than a power grab.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse