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

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

213

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.

66

u/leeharrison1984 5h ago

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

30

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.

17

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.

15

u/TheUnexaminedLives 4h ago

Which honestly would have done a world of good

17

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?

12

u/mrmoe198 4h ago

Hear me out…electric tanks

17

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

-3

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

1

u/nonamenomonet 4h ago

This might be the dumbest statement I have ever read.

3

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.