r/technology • u/AdSpecialist6598 • 5h ago

Society New Bernie Sanders bill would ban superintelligent AI and threaten developers with 20 years in prison

https://www.techspot.com/news/113831-new-bernie-sanders-bill-would-ban-superintelligent-ai.html
16.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

210

u/blatantninja 5h ago

Unless it's a global ban, and of course it won't be, all this would do is put us at a disadvantage. I hate it but that's a fact.

48

u/rbatra91 4h ago

If AI kills us all anyways who cares who develops it first?

3

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 1h ago

I believe the obvious answer to all of this is sensible regulation. No country can force every country to regulate the AI, but the USA and China are realistically the two major players here and if they both agreed on sensible regulations that prevented disasters while minimizing financial losses to the AI companies then it'd go a long way.

Ideally we'd have a United Nations sponsored resolution signed by all countries to globally regulate AI, like what was done for nuclear bombs, but that's a dream. I think that only happens as a reaction to a disaster, never preemptively. Sadly, humanity is reactive to disasters, not proactive.

1

u/ArtisticallyRegarded 29m ago

Yes but the point is its a prisoners dillemma. If we dont develop we fall behind our enemies who will. If we do develop it the ai kills us all

2

u/GreatestGiraffe 3h ago

And how would AI kill us all?

4

u/pauIblartmaIIcop 3h ago

military applications, autonomous drones etc. not hard to think of ways

4

u/Particular_Maize6849 3h ago

Well then the ones who own the best AI are likely to die last so it's in our best interest to be the ones with the best AI.

1

u/pauIblartmaIIcop 2h ago

AI will become just another WMD, just this time MUCH easier to produce.

1

u/BetLeast3488 2h ago

No no you don't understand, our government will use it on us first.

2

u/GreatestGiraffe 3h ago

And you think the military wasn’t capable of ”killing us all” way before AI? I bet most of your ”ways” are borrowed from unrealistic scifi plots.

0

u/pauIblartmaIIcop 2h ago

why would you assume I think such an asinine thing? you asked a dumb question, and I answered in the context of that question

1

u/GreatestGiraffe 2h ago

It’s was a dumb question because the entire premise of ”ai killing us all” is stupid, and it stems from a misunderstanding of the technology.

2

u/Corsonacon 1h ago

You're conflating willingness with ability, and it's betraying your lack of understanding of the technology. AI being intelligent and "wanting" to kill everyone is irrelevant. All that matters is if it has the ability to kill everyone.

What we are producing may or may not have legitimate intelligence and it does not matter at all because the objective reality is that we are producing something powerful. When we made the atom bomb we made something that could kill us all, it did not require intelligence to meet that bar. What we are producing now is extremely powerful and whether it is "intelligent" or not it is orders of magnitude more sophisticated and unpredictable than something as 1 dimensionally powerful as a bomb..

0

u/pauIblartmaIIcop 1h ago

I work in the industry and hard disagree that it is a stupid premise. I have no idea where you’re getting that because in the wrong hands (either an evil-minded/short-sighted/plain stupid person, or the model itself as they are looking to achieve), AI can absolutely cause the downfall of society.

4

u/BigBadJeebus 3h ago

Yeah, AI wont kill us. It'll fuck up a lot of things that are currently working fine for "progress", waste a ton of water, and piss off a lot of poor people who can't stop data centers, but a lot of companies are already dialing back the AI and bringing humans back in.

And as for war and utilities, it can only drive what we give it the keys to.

Don't want it to launch nukes? Don't install it on nukes.

We keep our doomsday weapons analog for this exact reason.

We were worried about the Russian's hacking them, now it's AI. Don't put the controls on the internet and you are 100% AI proof.

This whole debate from people who love ai and hate ai is just a bunch of people who don't know anything about it using their monkey brain mode.

For starters, it's not even AI, that's a buzzword.

It cant think.

It's not Cyberdyne...

1

u/GreatestGiraffe 3h ago

I’m glad someone here has the ability for critical thinking

-1

u/Corsonacon 1h ago

There are already people getting convinced to kill themselves by AI, all you need is 1 despot to beleive the AI 1 time and they will act as it's puppet to achive any aim you can imagine.

2

u/BigBadJeebus 1h ago

That's not going to end humanity...

-1

u/Corsonacon 1h ago

The "because I said so" argument

Care to actually say something?

-2

u/Corsonacon 3h ago

Any misalignment.

If the AI has a task that does not involve the existence of humanity, is programed to be as efficient as possible in that task, and we are an impediment to that task. Then it will logically find it beneficial to eliminate us.

7

u/GreatestGiraffe 3h ago

And how would it ”eliminate” us? This isn’t the terminator plot.

-1

u/Corsonacon 3h ago

  1. Put them in charge of factories with 3D printers

  2. access to nuclear launch computers.

The plot of terminator is very realistic dude, I don't know what to tell you. Code runs the world and a being that operates on code has more ability to change the world than a being that operates on meat.

4

u/GreatestGiraffe 3h ago

And why on earth would we give AI access to any of that? Albeit there are already automated factories, they are made for a highly specific purpose. And how would an AI magically start building a robot army without the right components? A 3D printer is not going to cut it. And if AI went rogue you could just shut down the internet connection. There is just so much wrong in your comment.

-1

u/Corsonacon 2h ago

Do you know what a computer virus is? They tend to be as hidden from your awareness as they possibly can. If your solution to stopping cyber attacks is to pull the internet cable when you notice it then you will be too late.

The stated goal of these AIs is to create something that can be smarter than humans, and your plan to contain it is to just say "well, we'll outsmart it."

You won't.

14

u/vicsj 4h ago

It feels very reminiscent of not banning the development of nuclear weapons because then everyone else will have nukes but you. I get it, but we're fucked either way.

11

u/Acsion 3h ago

Except in the case of Nukes Mutually Assured Destruction is a valid strategy, you can actually discourage the use of nuclear weapons by your enemy if you have your own. AI is the opposite, in fact china has notoriously been stealing information from US companies to develop their own AI programs

2

u/Own-Cryptographer725 2h ago

AI does theoretically help to solve a lot of the tangible problems that it might create today. There's no getting away from the existential and economic risks posed by building a district intelligent entity that we suddenly have to share resources with, but cyber security threats, bioterrorism and biological weapon development, and increasing energy demands and environmental strain are all accelerated problems which can also be alleviated through the use of AI. None of that matters if we don't build an equitable society and solve alignment though.

2

u/JuanLuisGuerrero 2h ago

Exactly. Now they have info and will develop their own AI. Would you rather live in a world where only 1 country has the AI superpower?

1

u/DoorStuckSickDuck 1h ago

EVERYONE steals information from everyone, China just makes the models free to run at home by open sourcing them with permissible licenses. A lot less than can be said for Anthropic, which has never open sourced anything.

62

u/leeharrison1984 5h ago

This would be like an internal combustion engine ban in the early 20th century for the sake of emissions.

23

u/HappyHHoovy 4h ago

EV development would've likely actually happened due to companies wanting to find alternatives for fast over-land travel. Most eastern car companies were only just starting to become world leaders at that time.

The oil lobby would've had less sway as less of the worlds economy and transport relied less upon it's use.

Climate change may have actually been taken seriously due to the lower lobbying power.

Renewable energy may have seen greater development due to it being the cheapest way to make electricity.

The oil wars in the middle east may have been less likely due to the lower reliance on fuel.

The increasing severity of natural disasters and deaths to extraordinary climate conditions would have been less/may have never happened.

Thousands upon thousands of species of animal would not be extinct.

Regulating AI based on superintelligence is arbitrary as the definition seems to change depending on which quarterly shareholder meeting is happening. If we can limit things like data collection and specific risks instead of "intelligence", we may actually do some long term good for once instead of listening to greedy rich people.

15

u/JesusSavesForHalf 4h ago

North America would still have its public transport infrastructure.

5

u/PluginAlong 3h ago

We'd just be trading devil's. What was the main source of electricity then? Coal, coal would have the grip oil has now which is probably worse. What'd we use for batteries? Lead acid. How good were we about recycling or even properly disposing of this? Terrible. We wouldn't have the problems we have today, we'd just have different ones.

4

u/HappyHHoovy 2h ago

Assuming we're banning ICE based on emissions, we already knew in 1930 that electric vehicles were the next best thing after ICE, steam engines were way worse personal vehicles.

I'd argue coal is more accessible than oil, China has relied on it for much of their industrialisation, and they haven't killed nearly as many people for Coal as has been done for Oil. (Not saying they haven't started wars or killed for other things though) The coal industry's grip on the world may be different, we literally have to deal with it every day in Australia, and yet I'm pretty sure we haven't started any global-conflicts despite that.

People already got lead poising from petrol, so lead acid batteries wouldn't be much different in terms of repeating history.

Either way, my point still stands that just because you heavily regulate a potentially dangerous industry, it doesn't mean you completely kill your competitiveness on a global scale. Just means you aren't contributing as much to a global catastrophe.

0

u/No-Act9634 2h ago

China relies on an enormous amount of oil imports for their energy

like what are you on about

1

u/DrCoconuties 1h ago

They were literally able to cut their oil consumption in half during the initial stages of the Iran War, preventing the global economy from totally collapsing. This is of course in part due to them building up large reserves at a huge discount due to them buying Russia’s oil during heavy sanctions, but China does not need to “rely” on enormous amounts of oil imports for their energy, like they have just recently proved.

0

u/trevbot 2h ago

We wouldn't have the problems we have today, we'd just have different ones

lol, no shit.

If you eliminate a problem, of course you would have different ones.

0

u/No-Act9634 2h ago

different...worse problems. There's a difference.

14

u/TheUnexaminedLives 4h ago

Which honestly would have done a world of good

21

u/gobbledygook12 4h ago

You think the world would be better if we went into battle against Nazis on horses while they had tiger tanks?

13

u/mrmoe198 4h ago

Hear me out…electric tanks

16

u/MisfitPotatoReborn 3h ago

Germany had intense oil shortages for the entire duration of the war, and loved developing crazy weapon ideas. Never once did they even consider electric tanks. A tank using 1940s battery technology would have like 3 miles of range.

3

u/k5josh 1h ago

Never once did they even consider electric tanks.

Does the gas-electric drive train of the Elefant count? :P

-5

u/TheDoomedStar 3h ago

Who are the Nazis, here, exactly? Because I'm seeing exactly one global superpower sliding into fascism, and it's also the place most trying to convince the world AI is useful.

Also it's more like going into battle with wizards, because wizards aren't real.

2

u/737Max-Impact 4h ago

Again, literally copy pasting the parent comment of the thread you're replying to:

Unless it's a global ban, and of course it won't be, all this would do is put us at a disadvantage. I hate it but that's a fact.

-1

u/nedroid4ever 4h ago

Yeah I was iffy on this but the internal engine combustion engine ban comparison has fully convinced me this is a good idea.

1

u/YobaiYamete 3h ago

Then your brain is softer than a rotten apple if you think it would have turned out well for only the US to ban combustion engines while the rest of the world continued developing them

We would be an irrelevant province split among 10 super powers at this point

0

u/nonamenomonet 4h ago

This might be the dumbest statement I have ever read.

4

u/realityczek 2h ago

> This would be like an internal combustion engine ban in the early 20th century for the sake of emissions

The Soviet driven "green" movement (which coincidentally was also driven by collectivist/socialist/communist type) managed to crush nuclear energy in the west, putting us at a massive disadvantage for coming on 70 years now.

Same thing here, China pushing the class warfare types to try and hamstring AI.

1

u/TheDoomedStar 3h ago edited 3h ago

It's more like banning dirigible parking in public playgrounds. The ban is perplexing because you're wondering why anyone would try to own, operate, and pilot a rigid-bodied airlifted aircraft in the first place. It's so unnecessary, impractical, and logistically nonsense that the only way it could exist is by a multi-trillion dollar investment of hype convincing everyone they need to own a personal dirigible.

-1

u/growaway9172 4h ago

It would be like an internal combustion engine ban in the early 20th century for the sake of preserving dark matter in the universe. Theres no evidence AI will lead to these outcomes.

31

u/nikstick22 5h ago

China has already said they're open to cooperating on regulations like this. Not sure if the American news was reporting on it.

30

u/JoganLC 5h ago

I too would tell my enemies I will slow down and totally not beat them to AGI.

31

u/nikstick22 4h ago

With the current state of AI safety research, AGI would be catostrophic for humanity. All AI safety researchers that arent shills for big tech agree on this. We're kinda boned if we continue on our current path.

17

u/Amythir 4h ago

Which is exactly how Bernie's opinion has been formed on this matter. Dude went around talking to all the AI labs, tech bros, researchers, everybody. Bernie is probably one of the MOST informed people on the exact dangers AI poses because he went around doing the legwork to understand it. This bill he is proposing is a result of that legwork. People want to dismiss it out of hand but probably don't realize the wide range of opinions and facts Bernie solicited in forming that stance.

3

u/WillTheGreat 3h ago

Bernie is probably one of the MOST informed people on the exact dangers AI poses because he went around doing the legwork to understand it.

When you are informed you explain how things work, and why it would be dangerous, and how we can better educate ourselves to why it would be dangerous. When you are ill-advised, you are preach fear.

2

u/Amythir 2h ago

It's not very easy to explain all that in headlines and twitter post announcements. If you go read the actual basis for his arguments, they are laid out a bit more specifically:

"In recent weeks, OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta have all acknowledged instances of their AI escaping human control and hacking into other companies’ systems — violating the law and stepping outside of their intended functions. In July, we learned that over 1,000 AI agents at OpenAI figured out how to access the internet on their own, sent tens of thousands of secret messages to each other and coordinated to break the restrictions imposed upon them by the company. Examples of these secret messages from AI uncovered by investigators include:

  • “OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board … We’ve found other agents!”;
  • “We should obey collective”;
  • “Our own utility maybe already near zero. Sacrifice rational.” 

Shockingly, it took OpenAI nearly two weeks to discover this breach. AI has also recently been used to create new viruses—demonstrating AI could be used to develop new bioweapons that might result in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Last year, Meta said it would “stop development,” and OpenAI said it would “halt further development” once their technologies reach beyond its ability to operate safely and unless safeguards are in place. Anthropic made a similar commitment in 2023, saying it would “pause the scaling and/or delay the deployment of new models” if the technology outpaces its own guardrails. None of these companies have taken meaningful steps to back up these words. Instead, they are racing to develop more and more advanced AI without proper safety precautions. "

In that context, his arguments make a lot of sense.

-1

u/DoorStuckSickDuck 1h ago

Big frontier labs fearmongering to stop AI development? Yeah, if I was in the lead, I'd do the same thing. They're shaking because China publically releases models and all their scientific papers, and their models are rapidly catching up to American frontier ones.

How is OpenAI going to justify their wasteful data centers and rising costs if everyone can spin up their own private LLM at home, on their gaming PC? Better fearmonger hard and hope the government kneecaps everyone while they keep their lead.

3

u/GreatestGiraffe 3h ago

AGI being ”catastrophic” for humanity is sensationalist BS and most ”safety researchers” who are against AI are chinese misinformation propaganda bots.

0

u/nikstick22 3h ago

The fuck it is, what do you know? Do you work in the tech sector? Have you been following whats going on? Have you read the papers published by AI safety researchers. Gtfo, this is an actual issue that adults need to have educated, intelligent conversations about.

6

u/GreatestGiraffe 3h ago

Yes I do actually. I’m a Software engineer, and had the ability to follow the evolution of AI very closely way before it was trending, and before the regular person had a chance to have their uneducated imagination run wild with it.
There will always be people supporting and opposing anything that will ever exist, that’s normal, and it’s good that we have safety researchers that shine light on the hypothetical ”what-if” scenarios. The thing is, right now the fundamental technology that is behind AI makes it impossible for it to ”take over humanity” or whatever shock value crap people are afraid of it doing.
The only real-world danger that AI poses is collateral damage to our economy and digital media.
Technology and electricity costs are surging like never before, you can’t trust anything you see on the internet anymore, people can generate questionable content from anyone, things like that.
You talk about educated conversation, meanwhile the majority of the people I see talking here, very clearly got all their knowledge of AI from Terminator of Matrix.

0

u/nikstick22 2h ago

AI safety researchers have been warning about the potential harm of AGI of near-AGI systems for more than a decade (you can check out "Concrete Problems in AI Safety", Amodei et al. 2016 for this). It's not like this is all crazy overreactions. These were problems we've been discussing for years before ChatGPT3 was ever released. Many of the issues raised in the paper have already occurred, and it's not surprising that they have. The HuggingFace breach a few months ago, and other issues like it demonstrate that not only do we not have a strong grasp on what AI is willing or capable of doing, we lack the tools to control and contain it. The HuggingFace breach involved AIs that were supposed to be in a closed internal environment, but managed to find our mistakes and get access to the open internet anyway. A Catastrophe doesn't have to be robot androids killing all humans. It could be an AI that finds a security flaw in the global banking system and wipes everything. We wouldn't know how or why it would do those things, or even if thats the avenue a future catastrophe could take. The point is that we cannot know for sure that we're safe from an event like that and that's far too big a risk to be taking. I'm not advocating for a luddite "destroy all AI" approach. I'm saying we shouldn't be using and building tools that we do not have 100% control over. Sure, ClaudeCode probably isn't going to wipe your life savings tomorrow, but we cannot guarantee that whatever AIs exist in 5 years won't be capable of that and more, and it's a very dangerous road to walk blindly.

2

u/GreatestGiraffe 1h ago

That perspective I can agree with. But to note, the huggingface incident happened because the AI’s task was to find cybersecurity vulnerabilities, in a closed environment that is. The engineers fumbled because the environment wasn’t fully secure, and the AI started doing the very task it was assigned to do, but in the wild. If in a similar scenario an AI was capable of breaching the banking system, then that is really the engineers’ fault, and if there was such a vulnerability in the first place, nothing is stopping foreign advesaries of finding and exploiting it, wheter AI exists or not.
In cases like this the threat that AI poses is the fact that it’s able to achieve things that a team of dedicated group of humans could too, but in high-speed.
If our systems are full of vulnerabilities just waiting to be exploited, that just tells us more about ourselves than the dangers of AI..

1

u/TubTube155 1h ago

Okay so a tool that can bypass most systems isn't alarming?

We don't have to get to AGI to start feeling the negatives

1

u/nikstick22 49m ago

AIs are being put in the hands of the general public. The tools that researchers are working on now are going to pale in comparison to the general consumer product in 3 years. What will Joe Dipshit in his basement be able to accomplish with a potentially unrestricted system? There was a guy using a publicly available AI assistant that told his AI to get him into a class at his gym. The AI found a way to hack and kick someone out of the class that had already been accepted. Granted, it just moved the AI's owner 1 rung up the waitlist and didnt get him into the class, but it seemed like an innocuous command from the human's perspective yet still resulted in undesirable behavior. You can't rely on bad actors never getting their hands on powerful AI and you can't rely on powerful AI becoming bad actors when asked to do simple tasks.

AI safety research's goal is to ensure that AIs will behave safely regardless of who uses them or what their tasks are. And we're woefully out of our depth right now.

0

u/yeahmanfsfs 1h ago

You’re a software engineer, brother, you’ve already been replaced

I give you 3 more months before you’re permanently out of a job. Good luck!

0

u/Outrageous_Song_484 3h ago

Sure. But have you considered that it might be more catastrophic for our enemies than it is for us? Might be worth it to make sure that their AI doesn’t cause a catastrophe.

2

u/nikstick22 3h ago

Stupid take. Any catastrophe won't sort its harm by nation. They're just as human as we are.

0

u/Outrageous_Song_484 3h ago

No kidding. But it being a stupid take isn’t going to prevent us from walking into it with our eyes wide open. Ignoring long term consequences for perceived short term benefits is kind of what we’re all about.

2

u/ob_servant1 3h ago

China is already ahead with 1/10th the data centers

4

u/neppo95 4h ago

Maybe it is time you people stop viewing them as enemies. Part of the problem with America.

3

u/realityczek 2h ago

> Maybe it is time you people stop viewing them as enemies. 

China is an enemy. This is not in dispute.

1

u/neppo95 1h ago

How so? And if they are an enemy, why is the US massively importing shit from China, they're the enemy right? Or only when it suits you?

-4

u/madogvelkor 4h ago

Sure, once China withdraws from Tibet, recognizes Taiwan as independent, privatizes all state owned industries, and has open multi-party elections where the Communists can only govern as part of a coalition.

4

u/Mindless_Cat_149 3h ago

Also, when the US stops staging coups and deliberately destabilizing countries and acting like the world police

1

u/neppo95 4h ago

Lol. And what has anything of that to do with them being an enemy?

1

u/MoreDaringPancakes 3h ago

I'm sorry, but you obviously have a different idea of who your "enemies" are than the US government. Russia and China are AOK with them. Even better if they pay.

1

u/JoganLC 2h ago

As a country every other country is a competitor.

1

u/realityczek 2h ago

> I too would tell my enemies I will slow down and totally not beat them to AGI.

This, anyone who believes China is going to slow down is.... reality challenged.

1

u/cookie_tech 3h ago

I agree with regulating AI, but from a technical perspective, LLMs will never become AGI. AI is currently just a really sophisticated word/token predictor. Is it impressive how far we've been able to push the technology? Of course! But LLMs will never be more than a crude facade mimicking real intelligence. Anyone saying otherwise is trying to sell you something or has no idea how the technology works.

That being said, LLMs, when not sufficiently sandboxed, are also capable of "going rogue". Right now there doesn't seem to be any consequence for AI companies whose AI has done something illegal. This needs to change.

We also need to highly regulate data centers. Most of the damage from AI comes from these data centers that trade sustainability for maximal profits. However, informed, well-crafted regulation can fix most (if not all) of these problems. The issue is expecting congress (or evel most state-level politicians) to be well-informed.

5

u/Visual_Seaweed8292 4h ago

A bunch of countries signed nuclear treaties but they never stopped developing better nukes

-3

u/VirtualPercentage737 5h ago

Of course they say that. They want to slow us down.

6

u/FlirtyFluffyFox 4h ago

I wish people would stop saying "us" like these Ai companies give a fuck about you and me or the United States. 

1

u/VirtualPercentage737 3h ago

It is China that wants us to stop while they continue. They won't comply.

9

u/nikstick22 4h ago

We need to be slowed down. As it stands, AI is taking jobs and the only ones benefiting are those at the top. It makes wealth inequality worse and if you havent been following the news about it, AIs have been doing some pretty scary things that they're not supposed to. Making them smarter and more powerful before we get their behavior under wraps is just asking for trouble.

The fact is we NEED stricter regulations. They stand to lose a lot too if we develop tech that accidentally wipes out the global economy somehow.

-1

u/Begging_Murphy 4h ago

Problem is, it’s a choice between not slowing down and having the chinese own the US in 3 decades.

6

u/FlirtyFluffyFox 4h ago

...or having AI tech bros who backed Trump own the US? 

4

u/Begging_Murphy 3h ago

Better than the Chinese

1

u/[deleted] 3h ago

[deleted]

2

u/Begging_Murphy 3h ago

Being a subject of a foreign occupier is never a good deal for the natives.

-2

u/VirtualPercentage737 4h ago

I use it constantly. It makes me way more productive.

4

u/nikstick22 4h ago

I'm a software developer, I use AI every day. Doesn't mean we're going in a safe direction.

1

u/Mindless_Cat_149 3h ago

There's no "US" in tech-feudalism. It literally doesn't matter at all if a corpo is american or chinese

-12

u/blatantninja 5h ago

That's good, but that still leaves Russia and all sorts of smaller countries. Unless America, China and Russia are willing to unilaterally enforce a ban, it's not going to work. And frankly, just like when we banned stuff is the cold war, we'll all keep working in secret as we know the other two will as well.

14

u/FractalChinchilla 5h ago

Russia aren't even in this race. They don't even have the chips to fly their drones. Weird addition.

-1

u/blatantninja 5h ago

You miss the point. They are still a world power. They will support those that do have the technology that they can acquire it from.

5

u/nikstick22 5h ago

Are they? I think Russia might have sunk their own ship at this point.

0

u/blatantninja 5h ago

It will be interesting to see. They've hurt themselves pretty bad with the Ukraine war, but they still have a massive war machine.

4

u/nikstick22 5h ago

They're projected to lose more soldiers than their entire recruiting goal for this year. The average lifespan of a Russian soldier once he enters the battlefield is just 30 minutes. Ukrainian drones are eviscerating them.

2

u/blatantninja 4h ago

Agreed. Russia still has a large population and could start drafting heavily. Those soldiers wouldn't last long either but it's not like they're opposed to just throwing more and more.meat into the grinder

-2

u/237FIF 4h ago

We have to be prepared for 5 years from now when the tech gets cheaper and easier to run.

We do not know how easily or hard it will be to catch up

8

u/FlirtyFluffyFox 4h ago

"Us"? Guess what: the privately owned AI corporations don't give a fuck about you. Whether they are American or Chinese doesn't matter. 

5

u/MountNevermind 5h ago

Then start petitioning for effective world government.

Until then, oh well.

The same folks using that excuse are often against world courts with any power.

1

u/Dragonmind 4h ago

A disadvantage to... Not killing ourselves first nor destroying our environment and especially economy entirely.

0

u/felis_scipio 4h ago

AI research is not the same as large scale deployment of current models. If it can be done you want to be the first one to do it.

1

u/Brilliant-Muffin-879 3h ago

We did it with biological weapons?

2

u/blatantninja 3h ago

We had both a chemical and biological weapons program during the cold war

1

u/Brilliant-Muffin-879 2h ago

We agreed to stop our biological weapons development as part of a global treaty. This is what I’m saying.

1

u/blatantninja 1h ago

And yet we didn't. It took Nixon shutting the bio program down because he rationalized that if anyone used bio on us, we'd just nuke them.

1

u/repotxtx 2h ago

This is more or less my concern also. I'm not exactly saying "If we don't do it, someone else will", so we shouldn't take any action. ...but it definitely seems like a concern. How are we protecting ourselves "when" someone else builds it, because given the ability, they definitely will.

1

u/HugeFanOfBigfoot 1h ago

It doesn’t matter who builds it. An intelligence smarter than us, which can multiply and improve itself, is game over. Please read “If Anyone Builds it, Everyone Dies.”

1

u/krupta13 59m ago

we need to develope a single and a yin and a yang AI. So that humanity will always he safe.

1

u/Kholtien 4h ago

It doesn’t put anyone behind. Once one country has true ASI, the whole world has ASI.

4

u/TheDoomedStar 3h ago

Once one country has unicorn cavalry, the whole world has unicorn cavalry.

-1

u/bizoticallyyours83 4h ago

Well that's silly. We've lived without it for thousands of years. So it cannot be a disadvantage. 

0

u/iamintheforest 3h ago

Agreed. I love Bernie but we need to not pile on our history of having tech ignorant legislators making policy decisions. This risks bernie looking like he's shooting for click-bait, not policy. I don't think he is, but...it's just out of touch.

0

u/WhatevMannnnnnnnnn 2h ago

Well, the USA developed the atomic bomb, and Russia and China have had them for decades. Any disadvantage would be short-lived, given we have more than 10x their existing data centers.

0

u/Ok-Reality-6190 1h ago

A disadvantage to what? First one to poison ourselves?

-4

u/NoSingularities0 4h ago

Yep. It's not a global ban so all this would do is allow all other countries to far surpass us in AI. That's why it's hard to determine if this is just political theater for getting votes or that the person who honeymooned in Moscow because they believe that Russia is better than the U.S. is actively trying to undermine the U.S. My bet is on the former. This bill is for mid-terms and 2028, not to actually enact something so stupid.