I share the concerns of https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments, but think that a pause is unrealistic.
I've just seen that they have a Plan B: "If such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium."
Again, I think that a moratorium/pause is unrealistic, but there may be a differentiable version of this suggestion:
[1/n]
"It is instructive to compare the situation in the life sciences to other areas of science in which the military has taken a stronger interest. The U.S. nuclear weapons program offers an example in which the Departments of Defense and Energy have played dominant roles in funding and shaping developments in nuclear physics and related fields. ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222057/
[2/n]
@rowat_c I offer the comparison with the Luddites who feared advancement and are now seen as having been a bit goofy in their worries.
No, let's see where this goes and let's apply it to our needs.
The advancement is going to happen. The only question is whether we reap advantages or not.
@volkris I'll take the bait, and defend Luddites: "The Luddites were not, as has often been portrayed, against the concept of progress and industrialisation as such, but instead the idea that mechanisation would threaten their livelihood and the skills they had spent years acquiring..."
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Luddites/
In honour of deep Luddites, I'll reject Arabic numerals in favour of Roman to number this (hand-spun, not loom woven!) thread:
[i/N]
@rowat_c Oh it's not bait.
I think it's clear that the Luddites were wrong in the end, and it's funny that where I'm from that's the general consensus. It wasn't even until recently that I realized there was a difference of opinion on that.
It's like coming across actual flat earthers.
Luddites were afraid of technological advancement being bad for humanity, and we've seen that it instead was a tremendous boon for humanity. They were on the wrong side with their shortsighted viewpoints.
@volkris Happy to be corrected with better sources if you think that Historic UK (my source) is misinformed about the Luddites; am less convinced by _ad hominem_.
Fully agreed that the conventional wisdom is that the Luddites opposed progress. To use your example, I grew up thinking that the conventional wisdom at the time of Columbus was 'flat earth', that he risked falling off. Turns out not to be so, but that that was a narrative device cooked up in Washington Irving's bio to add spice.
@rowat_c I have no idea what you're on about.
You miss frame something I said as ad hominem, whether through your own misunderstanding of what I said or your misunderstanding of what an ad hominem is, I'm actually not sure, but apparently you enjoyed that?
Anyway, no I adopted your own description of Luddites. They were wrong, though, as your own description of what they believed didn't pan out.
I agree with you about what they thought. Just as I would agree with you, probably, about what flat earthers believe.
But in both cases they were simply wrong.
@volkris you've made an assertion about the beliefs of Luddites; rather than presenting evidence for your assertion, you've compared them to flat earthers, thus just lobbing an insult. That's what I'd described as an _ad hominem_.
I'm happy to drop that, and remain happy to stand corrected with a better source. Otherwise, I propose we agree to disagree: I've enjoyed this - thank you!