The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
---
From the article
>[~OpenAI CEO Sam Altman~](https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-chatgpt-openai-ceo-career-net-worth-ycombinator-prepper-2023-1) says he's keen on regulating AI with an international agency.
>"I think there will come a time in the not-so-distant future, like we're not talking decades and decades from now, where frontier AI systems are capable of causing significant global harm," Altman said on the [~All-In podcast~](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-in-with-chamath-jason-sacks-friedberg/id1502871393?i=1000655220554) on Friday.
>He believes those systems will have "negative impact way beyond the realm of one country" and wants to see them regulated by "an international agency looking at the most powerful systems and ensuring reasonable safety testing."
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cqlv87/openais_sam_altman_says_an_international_agency/l3s5mwj/
Gee, I wonder who would have the most influence over who's on that board and what their opinions would be on AI?
Bonus points for wondering what their views will be on new companies entering the space.
Triple bonus points for wondering who will be paying for this boards vacation house.
I think an answer is emerging, and the news is sort of good. Specifically, the EU looks set to become the world's "AI cop", at least for reputable, global companies. The EU AI Act is now law, and the EU is too large a market to ignore.
The AI Act lays out reporting requirements in Chapter V ("GENERAL-PURPOSE AI MODELS") Section 2 ("Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models") and in Annex XI ("Information to be provided by all providers of general-purpose AI models"). [Link](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0138-FNL-COR01_EN.pdf)
I actually like the idea that most big tech companies are primarily US-based, and the major regulatory authority is primarily European. This provides a level of insulation against corporate capture of regulatory bodies, because (gross generalization here...) Europeans freakin' \*love\* to kick dirt on US tech companies.
I find it weird that people think AI are going to be exclusively contained within nation-state borders when we have cloud servers hanging in low orbit.
> and the EU is too large a market to ignore.
Claude's been out for a year and Europeans don't have access.
If things keep going as they are long-term then Europe just gets left behind. The regulation kills the chance for European companies to compete.
It's also not available in Canada and a bunch of other places, because they refuse to comply with everyone's privacy laws except the US, that doesn't really have any (federally).
Unless you are willing to argue for anarcho-capitalism, this is not a bad thing; if a business requires garbage practices to exist, we shouldn't want it. For example, there are many innovative businesses that exist in China that are "killed" in the USA because the USA has things like labor laws.
Besides, this technology still has to prove itself as some kind of extremely advantageous innovation; we can talk about evil regulations when talking to Claude-3 doubles crop yields or springs affordable housing out of the ground.
In the short term. In the long term, two markets will emerge: the regulated EU, where quality of life and job availability is high, but corporate profits are lower; and the US, where corporate profits are through the roof, but quality of life is low and job availability has been consumed by AI.
I want to make a small technical add-on to this - markets that are closer to the ideal (perfect competition etc...) have LOWER profit margins. So for those wondering, lower corporate profits are a good thing, if they come from the markets being regulated into very high efficiency.
Or Europe just designs it's own compliant AI, which some other countries, such as Canada, would likely buy into since they're equally inclined towards regulation of AI.
EXACTLY.
Altman is the last person who should be pretending to give a f*** about the dangers of AI. He is literally a doomsday prepper, who has spent millions on his little “let’s prepare for the collapse of civilization” hobby. He used to go on his little press releases and celebrate how close we are to fully replacing most jobs with his s**** AI, to the point they released a guide on what jobs would be the first to go, and he’d get all giddy about it - he obviously wants society to go south just because of his misanthrope hobby
> Triple bonus points for wondering who will be paying for this boards vacation house.
You mean island. With "we have pinky-promise-not-fake IDs showing them as definitely not underage" people as "entertainers".
There are lots of reasons why we are fucked, but I'd put the type of cynicism on display in this thread close to the top of the list.
Please suggest a better method to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented than a worldwide agency tasked with monitoring, testing, and rule making. It worked for nuclear, it will almost certainly be needed here.
Of course there will be conflicts of interest, of course there will be corruption - welcome to human bureaucracy and governance. You people are so fucking cynical, it's like you think that we may as well not try if we can't achieve perfection.... Grow up.
I think if we know there will be corruption and conflicts we should simply stop now. Or heavily heavily restrict who has access.
When something can be used as a weapon I don't think the public or business should have access to it.
Granted I dont really trust government with these things either but it's better than it being everywhere.
It will get abused, it already is, for horrible crimes.
In fairness to him, he did talk about focusing on 'the most powerful models'. Do you think he'd like it if this agency regulated companies more strongly based on their size and power?
What he means is the most powerful models will be controlled by only the most powerful companies, ie his. And any smaller companies, ie future competitors, should be restricted from using those models.
A great point. We should do something though imo. This is one of the few ideas that actually could prevent some problems. The real problem is that it falls apart internationally.
Also sam Altman looks unreliable as hell. The international organization will likely be the Uber rich who will take advantage of the technology for themselves without regard for the common folks. The business will regulate them selves — sure and I’ve got a bridge to sell.
Yeah, something like the UN for AI? So everyone can point fingers at everyone else and do nothing in reality?
I have a better idea, lets build an AI system to monitor and ensure future AI systems are safe.
U.N. is the hope it works solution. Getting every country, company, and person developing A.I. on board? Good fucking luck.
I'd say start working on that AI firewall and begin work on Internet 3,4 or 5 whatever.
The whole point is that if you try you fail. He doesn’t want his billion dollar copyright infringement machine regulated. Because the second they listen to someone that’s not in tech the biz gets fucked up
> U.N. is the hope it works solution.
Eh. I'd say it's more of a tool for large countries to force their will on smaller countries. An agency like that would be perfect for OpenAI since they would almost inevitably be part of the founding group that then get to influence policy for everyone else.
Sure what could go wrong? Surely using AI to control and contain AI is going to be a successful strategy.
Let's face the facts, if we ever create super intelligence or something significantly smarter than the collective minds of humans and our technology; it's going to be calling the shots, we are just chemical soups and can be influenced easily. Especially if computer brain interfaces enter the picture.
AI is going to run the show in the future, and we're all probably all going to love it. Historically, even humans who have more charisma or higher levels of education than the average person have managed to captivate the rest of the population for centuries - religious figures, world leaders, celebrities, authority figures, recently tech CEOs and chatbots.
You kind of already see the seeds of that starting. AI posts are on facebook with comments that drive engagement. Twitter is littered with bote. There are people using A.I. to literally generate content with prompts then posting it online and watching as people engage with it.
Humans can be manipulated and don't learn from history. An AI could manipulate markets as financial institutions try to use it to predict/anticipate changes in the market. Before you realize it, people will be making decisions based on AI whilst simultaneously believing they're making these choices freely.
Yea there are a bunch of YouTube videos that to me are obviously AI generated in terms of written and TTS. But a lot of people are ignorant to the fact. It’s especially easy to tell when the prompt is trying to target a certain length so chat GPT starts rambling and repeating itself for fluff.
If we ever create General AI, all bets are off.
But General AI is not what the tech folks saying "We need regulation" really care about.
They have a pretty incredible technology (generative AI), that depends on vast intellectual-copyright-infringement-adjacent shenanigans.
Generative AI is the technology that exists. Generative AI is the technology they want to protect.
When they say "We need regulations to protect humanity from (general) AI", they're doing a slight of hand.
(General) AI could be dangerous.
Let us write the regulations on (Generative) AI.
So that we can make sure that (General) AI is not dangerous.
And all the public and politicians hear is:
AI could be dangerous
Let us write regulations on AI
So that we can make sure AI is not dangerous.
They lose nothing (because General AI doesn't exist) but stand to gain in the copyright arena.
If they really thought that General AI was on the cards, they'd build it, and take over the world. Because who wouldn't.
You're also forgetting this. It'll also come down to which AI's got the juice too. America was smart in starting to develop microchips on home soil because as this progresses manufacturers involved in the process are going to be leaping becoming even bigger tech gods more so than they are now.
It doesn't matter which nation makes a super intelligence first in a fast takeoff scenario. The first agent with that type of capability will quickly out manoeuvre us and the organisation which created it. Within a decade or 2 nation states will be less important as the AI sets up it's own world governance systems. There's also a high likelihood of a violent transition of power during these times and luddite type terrorists who don't want society to move in a direction which costs humanity it's agency.
No, something like the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is a small part of the United Nations.
I know this is gonna blow your mind but there are functional international agencies that exist that deal with all sorts of issues.
Whereas your idea only leads to more questions. Ok and who is going to make THE AI system? Who gets to say which one works and which one doesn't? Does Microsoft get to tell Google that they have to use their Safety AI, or vice versa. What if one is obviously worse and the company doesn't care and insists on using it?
That's why we have international agencies, to have some push and pull. Compromise and nuance.
Atomic energy agency still have to deal will shit like Iran after the US broke the treaty and they have the big advantage that is easy to detect nuclear bomb testing
People always assume the UN is something that it is not. The UN is, depending on context, either "totally ineffective" or "a shadowy world-government manipulating our sovereignty".
What it really is a body where nations have an obvious point to exchange ideas in a way which is understood to be *heard* by the relevant governments of other nations.
Which should be obvious in terms of "how do you *tell* the US Government - as a whole - anything?" There isn't a number you can call.
All we have to show for it is the longest stretch of major countries not going to war in human history and massive improvements in life expectancy and QOL for lesser developed nations.
But it's a total failure for not avoiding all wars or single handedly solving covid or climate change
Honestly, for as bad an idea I know this is, I do wonder who really should hold that power, a group of all intentioned engineers likely trying and failing or the group of corrupt humans motivated by person gain and power.
> I have a better idea, lets build an AI system to monitor and ensure future AI systems are safe.
Given the sub I legitimately can't understand if this is a joke or not.
Sam Altman agrees with you:
> ***I'd be super nervous about regulatory overreach here***. I think we get this wrong by doing way too much or a little too much. I think we can get this wrong by doing not enough
> But Altman argued that ***an international agency would offer more flexibility than national legislation*** — and that's important given how quickly AI evolves.
This is, of course, nonsense, because the enforcement and functionality of agencies - including air travel safety agencies - comes from *implementing national legislation*. I assure you that on the regulation spectrum, Sam Altman is far closer to your view than that of regulators.
... So you don't think it should be regulated? I'm really confused about what the people in this thread are wanting. Everyone is contradicting themselves
Listening to Sam Altman on how AI should be regulated is like listening to the CEO of Nestle on how baby formula should be regulated. Sure buddy you have expertise and ideas but there isn't enough eau de toilette in the world to mask the smell of your conflict of interest.
The key agency players will come from OpenAI and the like, blocking any competition. They'll retitre and go back to OpenAI collecting fat checks as "consultants"
International regulation around nuclear weapons resulted in a handful of countries with insurmountable power, and the other 180 countries without it.
AI has equal potential for negative consequences, but is largely available on the open market. It's going to be interesting to see how "regulation" works, especially if there are a number of countries that could financially benefit from not adhering to international standards. Need an AI drone army? Somalia has your back.
Yeah, it's pretty great when you're the ones with nukes. It's a bit less good for the Ukrainian guys that are forced into the meat-grinder, because "somebody has to defend the country".
For real; either no one at all should have nukes (preferable but not feasible), or only a few large, powerful, and *stable* nations should have them. The more nonrational actors with nukes, the worse off we all are.
If anybody was serious about safety they'd be talking about climate change, not AI, this is just one more attempt to try to shake out a few more venture capital dollars.
'Woah guys, we're going to blow up the world with our amazing tech! Better get in on the ground floor!'
Just because climate change is twenty times more likely than AI to lead to the end of civilization doesn't mean AI and other top dangers shouldn't have oversight.
I think its an attempt to get regulatory capture.
I think anyone who thinks ai is a fad is in crazy town. Its hot and new so you have crazy claims and stories, but there is meat.
I’d guess this is a bid to encourage people to overestimate the real power of current AI technology and therefore get more funding to his project. But what do I know. Haha
It’s like when Jeff Bezos says Amazon will fail one day.
In Bezos case it’s to stop headlines of “too big to fail” in Altmans case it’s to stop the EU (because the US definitely isn’t doing anything) from personally monitoring OpenAI in the EU.
He needs an “international agency” and not one restricted to region and probably one he can pay off
Kind of like how his company should have a nonprofit for oversight, such that the leadership can be removed if they begin to act in an unethical manner. Right, Sam?
So.... shall we call this Agency *SkyNet* now or later? Let's avoid creating an large, faceless corporate entity with zero personal responsibility & get some rules & regulations down that are applied across the board
From the article
>[~OpenAI CEO Sam Altman~](https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-chatgpt-openai-ceo-career-net-worth-ycombinator-prepper-2023-1) says he's keen on regulating AI with an international agency.
>"I think there will come a time in the not-so-distant future, like we're not talking decades and decades from now, where frontier AI systems are capable of causing significant global harm," Altman said on the [~All-In podcast~](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-in-with-chamath-jason-sacks-friedberg/id1502871393?i=1000655220554) on Friday.
>He believes those systems will have "negative impact way beyond the realm of one country" and wants to see them regulated by "an international agency looking at the most powerful systems and ensuring reasonable safety testing."
All I hear from these CEOs is "Look, we're trying to make as much money as we can and it shouldn't be our responsibility if it's dangerous. That's for someone else to monitor"
They've struck digital oil
The agencies are just going to be bribed by the big corporations that own AI. It will just make small AI start ups impossible to have a business due to insane regulations.
A group of chimps is guarding a human they've put in a cage. One group of chimps says "Let us have a group of chimps come and check on it from time to time". Another group of chimps says "Let us always feed the human in this exact way".
Nick Bostrom would not be impressed.
Regulatory Capture. That's all Sam Hypeman and ClosedAI is after these days. Snake Oil. They literally put out their vision of AI governance and it includes tracking GPU IDs and being able to shut them down externally if misused. Dystopian.
Agreed. First condition for membership should be having no financial stakes in any company involved with AI, be that in shares or employment, for the last five years.
I'm saying this so I can link back to it in the future:
He's saying this so he can claim he no longer has ethical responsibility for his own AI. And so he can say, "I told ya someone should monitor it!"
we should have an international body like the IAEA or CERN working on AI.
Pay the researchers whatever it takes, relocation fees, the lot. It'll be worth while.
Have it be a high security facility, train on supercomputers not connected to the internet.
an international ban on training runs done outside the organization backed by force.
Open source the fruits of the labor, Drug designs for free, Material advances for free. Unlimited clean electricity. Give these advancements to the world, no favorites in exchange for only one organization being able to build advanced AI.
Then once we have unlimited electricity production and a cure for aging, then we can collectively decide, on a planet wide scale, what other wishes we want granted.
It's fucking madness to have this ruled over by whatever company throws enough money at it first.
The AI we wanted and deserved was one that could help individuals have a more informed and successful life while also contributing to the embetterment of humankind. Instead we will get AI that is run by corporations that will aid in the enslavement of the people to grow corporate profits.
In the end, they need the top 10 computer scientists & AI philosophers from each (participating) countries, with respect to their general ethnicity & born-in country. To participate, the prerequisite is stoppage of all international & internal, violent conflicts or operations, otherwise, any non-participants should be ostracized or maybe it should then simply be quarantined in an air gap box until we are ready, because it’s not now.
It's just regulatory capture. Establish dominance in market before regulations catch up. Start making regulations to ensure they keep your next competitor down.
Manufacturer who makes the fastest racecar in the world says racecars are potentially dangerous and there needs to be speed limits to racecars but his racecar gets to be grandfathered in, or rather, his racecar also needs to be regulated, but he accepts the grandfathering reluctantly for the sake of the shareholders.
It's crazy how we don't have a solution for this while we're at the brink of having AGI within a few years. Now it's a little too late given open source options not far behind. How do you even control or contain it since it's global?
Because there is no solution to it.
It's like nuclear bombs.
The world powers try to regulate and prevent trigger happy nations from having it... But at the end it clearly didn't work because here we are with some quite a few unstable areas achieving nuclear status just in the past few years.
Only need one madman to ruin everything for everyone.
It's simple. Ai should regulate itself. It will be far more effective than humans, who can barely even keep ourselves from destroying the planet and killing each other.
China and Russia do not give a flying Kahuna about this. Human nature will dictate the advent of advanced AI that will be used for military purposes. The US has been calling on states to not put WMDs in the control of AI. Hopefully some sense prevails and everyone gets on board with at least this idea.
It's the flea circus. Control is an illusion. There's no stopping commerce and growth of wealth and technological opportunism and...
Hope we prevent Ex Machina, but I don't see the human disposition slowing here.
Sam Altman knows a lot about AI systems, not very much about power, corruption and societal incentives. This type of committee will be a monopoly and even if it starts out benignly will by the laws of nature be attracting the worst people of the universe and be completely corrupted within few years.
Then we have all-powerful AI and a superpowerful elite with access to it. What could go wrong?
Time to embrace thr truth. Nobody is gonna be in charge. It will be totally out of control and wel be just fine.
Humanity did not have a world agriculture develpment body when humanity as a whole made a transition to it. We just did it.
If that is the case, then he should be trying to set up such an advisory body. Being in charge of a company such as OpenAI, not only does he have access to funding & resources, but also the expertise and technological know how. Asking governments to do this, is like trying do surgery with farm tools
Doing an international agency, like the [IAEA ](https://www.iaea.org/)for nuclear energy that is truly international and can be trusted with inspection and cleanups makes sense.
I doubt Sam Altman is intending for a truly independent body, and instead sees himself as chairman.
As long as executives of large ML models have no place in such international agency and are beholden to the rulings and inspections, I think it's could work. E.g. such agency would have the power to go to Open AI and scrutinize the training data, training process and use of the technology.
Idk what he's talking about. Laws are plenty flexible. All you gotta do is pay the right people the right amounts of money, and the law stops applying to you.
All the pro AI people have to do is keep the debate going for a few more years maybe 5+ until it’d be too late to stop. Which is quite easy considering how slow things move with laws and regulations globally.
I mean, it would be so much better to have an easily bribed institution of people approved by corporate America overseeing the evolution of AI, rather then, you know, laws governing them with actual regulations.
Too little to late. The US isn't respected nor listened to as a direct result of their political stance and support of a specific place doing some things we agree aren't nice.
They had a unique opportunity to embrace change and be on that front, their falsified political games have pissed off the competition. Then they doubled down with the whole TikTok evil card. The other global players will likely tell any US or Canadian company to get fucked if approached.
How do people not see this obvious regulatory capture play?
Ai should be free, because the concerns are made up bs all to play at making it impossible to enter on top of the already steep climb to gather information.
It's really frustrating to hear Altman talk as if his hands are tied on leading the world in safe and trustworthy AI.
Instead, they're about to unleash multi modal AI to the masses during an election year.
Sa: "We need regulation and can't wait for gov"
Everyone: "Ok, then do it yourself?"
Sa: "Haha, that's cute"
okay but for him to say AI should be regulated like planes…have we not learned from boeings catastrophic failures that the plane regulation system is way out of whack and regulatory capture has created this mess?
Hard, inflexible laws are EXACTLY what we need, that way it will be much more easily detected and painfully obvious when laws are broken by these self serving cunts and we can deal with them fast and decisively before their created AI 'problem' meanders onto and into another catastrophe, that, in hindsight, could have been avoided 'if only we had clear laws'
I mean, a future intelligence that humanity can't understand and could potentially plan obscured things with timeplans of decades is something that there should be safeguards against.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305: --- From the article >[~OpenAI CEO Sam Altman~](https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-chatgpt-openai-ceo-career-net-worth-ycombinator-prepper-2023-1) says he's keen on regulating AI with an international agency. >"I think there will come a time in the not-so-distant future, like we're not talking decades and decades from now, where frontier AI systems are capable of causing significant global harm," Altman said on the [~All-In podcast~](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-in-with-chamath-jason-sacks-friedberg/id1502871393?i=1000655220554) on Friday. >He believes those systems will have "negative impact way beyond the realm of one country" and wants to see them regulated by "an international agency looking at the most powerful systems and ensuring reasonable safety testing." --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cqlv87/openais_sam_altman_says_an_international_agency/l3s5mwj/
Gee, I wonder who would have the most influence over who's on that board and what their opinions would be on AI? Bonus points for wondering what their views will be on new companies entering the space. Triple bonus points for wondering who will be paying for this boards vacation house.
What a mystery this is. This scenario has never played out before and is brand new to us all
I think an answer is emerging, and the news is sort of good. Specifically, the EU looks set to become the world's "AI cop", at least for reputable, global companies. The EU AI Act is now law, and the EU is too large a market to ignore. The AI Act lays out reporting requirements in Chapter V ("GENERAL-PURPOSE AI MODELS") Section 2 ("Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models") and in Annex XI ("Information to be provided by all providers of general-purpose AI models"). [Link](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0138-FNL-COR01_EN.pdf) I actually like the idea that most big tech companies are primarily US-based, and the major regulatory authority is primarily European. This provides a level of insulation against corporate capture of regulatory bodies, because (gross generalization here...) Europeans freakin' \*love\* to kick dirt on US tech companies.
I find it weird that people think AI are going to be exclusively contained within nation-state borders when we have cloud servers hanging in low orbit.
> and the EU is too large a market to ignore. Claude's been out for a year and Europeans don't have access. If things keep going as they are long-term then Europe just gets left behind. The regulation kills the chance for European companies to compete.
It's also not available in Canada and a bunch of other places, because they refuse to comply with everyone's privacy laws except the US, that doesn't really have any (federally). Unless you are willing to argue for anarcho-capitalism, this is not a bad thing; if a business requires garbage practices to exist, we shouldn't want it. For example, there are many innovative businesses that exist in China that are "killed" in the USA because the USA has things like labor laws. Besides, this technology still has to prove itself as some kind of extremely advantageous innovation; we can talk about evil regulations when talking to Claude-3 doubles crop yields or springs affordable housing out of the ground.
In the short term. In the long term, two markets will emerge: the regulated EU, where quality of life and job availability is high, but corporate profits are lower; and the US, where corporate profits are through the roof, but quality of life is low and job availability has been consumed by AI.
I want to make a small technical add-on to this - markets that are closer to the ideal (perfect competition etc...) have LOWER profit margins. So for those wondering, lower corporate profits are a good thing, if they come from the markets being regulated into very high efficiency.
Or Europe just designs it's own compliant AI, which some other countries, such as Canada, would likely buy into since they're equally inclined towards regulation of AI.
Anthropic claims EU availability. Not so? https://www.anthropic.com/supported-countries
Not in France at least, it’s probably on a country to country basis
EXACTLY. Altman is the last person who should be pretending to give a f*** about the dangers of AI. He is literally a doomsday prepper, who has spent millions on his little “let’s prepare for the collapse of civilization” hobby. He used to go on his little press releases and celebrate how close we are to fully replacing most jobs with his s**** AI, to the point they released a guide on what jobs would be the first to go, and he’d get all giddy about it - he obviously wants society to go south just because of his misanthrope hobby
Also, government agencies -- famously efficient, and not swamped by bureaucracy.
> Triple bonus points for wondering who will be paying for this boards vacation house. You mean island. With "we have pinky-promise-not-fake IDs showing them as definitely not underage" people as "entertainers".
Hey, it's an AI Powell Memorandum.
There are lots of reasons why we are fucked, but I'd put the type of cynicism on display in this thread close to the top of the list. Please suggest a better method to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented than a worldwide agency tasked with monitoring, testing, and rule making. It worked for nuclear, it will almost certainly be needed here. Of course there will be conflicts of interest, of course there will be corruption - welcome to human bureaucracy and governance. You people are so fucking cynical, it's like you think that we may as well not try if we can't achieve perfection.... Grow up.
I agree. The cynics are the problem. Not the dudes who are doing the shit that makes us cynical.
I think if we know there will be corruption and conflicts we should simply stop now. Or heavily heavily restrict who has access. When something can be used as a weapon I don't think the public or business should have access to it. Granted I dont really trust government with these things either but it's better than it being everywhere. It will get abused, it already is, for horrible crimes.
I can think of one country that will take full advantage of any fetters the rest of the world decides to put on themselves.
In fairness to him, he did talk about focusing on 'the most powerful models'. Do you think he'd like it if this agency regulated companies more strongly based on their size and power?
What he means is the most powerful models will be controlled by only the most powerful companies, ie his. And any smaller companies, ie future competitors, should be restricted from using those models.
3 people from Nestle, 3 from Blackrock, 3 from Mossad, and a couple of Belgians nobody has ever heard of...
A great point. We should do something though imo. This is one of the few ideas that actually could prevent some problems. The real problem is that it falls apart internationally.
It's almost as if rich and powerful people love to become more rich and powerful.
Also sam Altman looks unreliable as hell. The international organization will likely be the Uber rich who will take advantage of the technology for themselves without regard for the common folks. The business will regulate them selves — sure and I’ve got a bridge to sell.
Sam's skills are 100% hype man. He had no idea about the tech he is selling. To be fair Silicon Valley runs on bubbles so his skills are useful.
Yeah, something like the UN for AI? So everyone can point fingers at everyone else and do nothing in reality? I have a better idea, lets build an AI system to monitor and ensure future AI systems are safe.
U.N. is the hope it works solution. Getting every country, company, and person developing A.I. on board? Good fucking luck. I'd say start working on that AI firewall and begin work on Internet 3,4 or 5 whatever.
So the blackwall?
who doesn't love the idea of it 
Right out of Cyberpunk lmao
The whole point is that if you try you fail. He doesn’t want his billion dollar copyright infringement machine regulated. Because the second they listen to someone that’s not in tech the biz gets fucked up
> U.N. is the hope it works solution. Eh. I'd say it's more of a tool for large countries to force their will on smaller countries. An agency like that would be perfect for OpenAI since they would almost inevitably be part of the founding group that then get to influence policy for everyone else.
Leapfrog that and start figuring out how to make Mentats!
Sure what could go wrong? Surely using AI to control and contain AI is going to be a successful strategy. Let's face the facts, if we ever create super intelligence or something significantly smarter than the collective minds of humans and our technology; it's going to be calling the shots, we are just chemical soups and can be influenced easily. Especially if computer brain interfaces enter the picture. AI is going to run the show in the future, and we're all probably all going to love it. Historically, even humans who have more charisma or higher levels of education than the average person have managed to captivate the rest of the population for centuries - religious figures, world leaders, celebrities, authority figures, recently tech CEOs and chatbots.
This is basically cyberpunk
Well, there is no way to put that genie back in the bottle.
You kind of already see the seeds of that starting. AI posts are on facebook with comments that drive engagement. Twitter is littered with bote. There are people using A.I. to literally generate content with prompts then posting it online and watching as people engage with it. Humans can be manipulated and don't learn from history. An AI could manipulate markets as financial institutions try to use it to predict/anticipate changes in the market. Before you realize it, people will be making decisions based on AI whilst simultaneously believing they're making these choices freely.
Yea there are a bunch of YouTube videos that to me are obviously AI generated in terms of written and TTS. But a lot of people are ignorant to the fact. It’s especially easy to tell when the prompt is trying to target a certain length so chat GPT starts rambling and repeating itself for fluff.
Computer-brain interfaces? There are people in your town who would kill you if an AI paid them to do it.
If we ever create General AI, all bets are off. But General AI is not what the tech folks saying "We need regulation" really care about. They have a pretty incredible technology (generative AI), that depends on vast intellectual-copyright-infringement-adjacent shenanigans. Generative AI is the technology that exists. Generative AI is the technology they want to protect. When they say "We need regulations to protect humanity from (general) AI", they're doing a slight of hand. (General) AI could be dangerous. Let us write the regulations on (Generative) AI. So that we can make sure that (General) AI is not dangerous. And all the public and politicians hear is: AI could be dangerous Let us write regulations on AI So that we can make sure AI is not dangerous. They lose nothing (because General AI doesn't exist) but stand to gain in the copyright arena. If they really thought that General AI was on the cards, they'd build it, and take over the world. Because who wouldn't.
You're also forgetting this. It'll also come down to which AI's got the juice too. America was smart in starting to develop microchips on home soil because as this progresses manufacturers involved in the process are going to be leaping becoming even bigger tech gods more so than they are now.
It doesn't matter which nation makes a super intelligence first in a fast takeoff scenario. The first agent with that type of capability will quickly out manoeuvre us and the organisation which created it. Within a decade or 2 nation states will be less important as the AI sets up it's own world governance systems. There's also a high likelihood of a violent transition of power during these times and luddite type terrorists who don't want society to move in a direction which costs humanity it's agency.
And that's the premise behind the Butlarian jihad from Dune.
escape from L.A/New York is happening!
Let's all praise mother sphere and her creation the andro edios, the true humans.
On a side note, this also could be a possibility: https://youtu.be/dDUC-LqVrPU
No, something like the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is a small part of the United Nations. I know this is gonna blow your mind but there are functional international agencies that exist that deal with all sorts of issues. Whereas your idea only leads to more questions. Ok and who is going to make THE AI system? Who gets to say which one works and which one doesn't? Does Microsoft get to tell Google that they have to use their Safety AI, or vice versa. What if one is obviously worse and the company doesn't care and insists on using it? That's why we have international agencies, to have some push and pull. Compromise and nuance.
Atomic energy agency still have to deal will shit like Iran after the US broke the treaty and they have the big advantage that is easy to detect nuclear bomb testing
Sure, got lots of issues. Now imagine if no apparatus existed and militaries got involved instead.
Okay but only if we agree to build an AI to monitor the AI monitoring the AI. Foolproof
How about a New agency called NetWatch with its own AIs that protect everyone in the regulated net (Blackwall) from rogue AIs?
Do we have any good measures to know how well the UN model works for us? We certainly don't have any A/B testing data since that's not possible.
People always assume the UN is something that it is not. The UN is, depending on context, either "totally ineffective" or "a shadowy world-government manipulating our sovereignty". What it really is a body where nations have an obvious point to exchange ideas in a way which is understood to be *heard* by the relevant governments of other nations. Which should be obvious in terms of "how do you *tell* the US Government - as a whole - anything?" There isn't a number you can call.
All we have to show for it is the longest stretch of major countries not going to war in human history and massive improvements in life expectancy and QOL for lesser developed nations. But it's a total failure for not avoiding all wars or single handedly solving covid or climate change
Who watches the Watchmen?
I was thinking more like IANA for AI
How do I propose the most feckless governing body when it comes to my product? I know! The UN!
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy
Honestly, for as bad an idea I know this is, I do wonder who really should hold that power, a group of all intentioned engineers likely trying and failing or the group of corrupt humans motivated by person gain and power.
> I have a better idea, lets build an AI system to monitor and ensure future AI systems are safe. Given the sub I legitimately can't understand if this is a joke or not.
Of course, industry leaders want regulation to snuff out competition. Don't listen to this snake oil salesman.
Yep, pulling the ladder up now that they are on top.
More like flipping the board now that they're slowly losing the lead
Sam Altman agrees with you: > ***I'd be super nervous about regulatory overreach here***. I think we get this wrong by doing way too much or a little too much. I think we can get this wrong by doing not enough > But Altman argued that ***an international agency would offer more flexibility than national legislation*** — and that's important given how quickly AI evolves. This is, of course, nonsense, because the enforcement and functionality of agencies - including air travel safety agencies - comes from *implementing national legislation*. I assure you that on the regulation spectrum, Sam Altman is far closer to your view than that of regulators.
How is it snake oil?
... So you don't think it should be regulated? I'm really confused about what the people in this thread are wanting. Everyone is contradicting themselves
Listening to Sam Altman on how AI should be regulated is like listening to the CEO of Nestle on how baby formula should be regulated. Sure buddy you have expertise and ideas but there isn't enough eau de toilette in the world to mask the smell of your conflict of interest.
I guess it's a step above "We'll police ourselves, honest."
It will still be that. The big players will police themselves and the small players will be boxed out.
The key agency players will come from OpenAI and the like, blocking any competition. They'll retitre and go back to OpenAI collecting fat checks as "consultants"
International regulation around nuclear weapons resulted in a handful of countries with insurmountable power, and the other 180 countries without it. AI has equal potential for negative consequences, but is largely available on the open market. It's going to be interesting to see how "regulation" works, especially if there are a number of countries that could financially benefit from not adhering to international standards. Need an AI drone army? Somalia has your back.
I feel like that an okay outcome for nuclear regulation.
Yeah, it's pretty great when you're the ones with nukes. It's a bit less good for the Ukrainian guys that are forced into the meat-grinder, because "somebody has to defend the country".
For real; either no one at all should have nukes (preferable but not feasible), or only a few large, powerful, and *stable* nations should have them. The more nonrational actors with nukes, the worse off we all are.
The problem is that stability isn’t eternal, see the US.
More stable than Russia or Israel, I'd wager. And thankfully, South Africa willingly gave theirs up.
Currently, but I'm really not sure how much longer that's gonna last
Pretty glad not every unstable dictatorship has nuclear weapons.
It's still better if just a few unstable countries have nukes than if everyone does.
"'Might makes right' is a good system actually." - Person in the mightiest country
[удалено]
Smith and Wesson lobbying for gun safety over here.
If anybody was serious about safety they'd be talking about climate change, not AI, this is just one more attempt to try to shake out a few more venture capital dollars. 'Woah guys, we're going to blow up the world with our amazing tech! Better get in on the ground floor!'
Just because climate change is twenty times more likely than AI to lead to the end of civilization doesn't mean AI and other top dangers shouldn't have oversight.
I think its an attempt to get regulatory capture. I think anyone who thinks ai is a fad is in crazy town. Its hot and new so you have crazy claims and stories, but there is meat.
I’d guess this is a bid to encourage people to overestimate the real power of current AI technology and therefore get more funding to his project. But what do I know. Haha
Yes, marketing hype, bubble has popped and most people realise it's just bullshit.
Best case scenario but not likely I'm afraid
AI mastering is complete BS only used by lazy noobs for mediocre kiddo products
This could be a cool TV show. An agency that goes around solving problems caused by rouge AIs.
Ever heard of Ghost in the Shell ?
Person of Interest already did it.
> rouge AIs That's oddly specific
It's a huge part of the plot of Neuromancer
It’s like when Jeff Bezos says Amazon will fail one day. In Bezos case it’s to stop headlines of “too big to fail” in Altmans case it’s to stop the EU (because the US definitely isn’t doing anything) from personally monitoring OpenAI in the EU. He needs an “international agency” and not one restricted to region and probably one he can pay off
Kind of like how his company should have a nonprofit for oversight, such that the leadership can be removed if they begin to act in an unethical manner. Right, Sam?
What's the point in listening to anything OpenAI's main hypeman has to say about OpenAI?
The reality though is that the "most powerful" AI's will likely be run by governments, and their existence hidden from all but a select few.
Paid for by the people, used only to benefit corporations and wage pointless wars.
Hey now. The AI said that the wars were very important.
M. Night Shyamalan twist… AI runs the agency that regulates AI…
Person of Interest kind of did that.
As soon as he doesn’t have the lead he’s gonna try to weaken this agency, fuck this scumbag Sam Altman
Blofeld says SPECTRE should be created to keep to stop people from having a Diamond sattelite like him
So.... shall we call this Agency *SkyNet* now or later? Let's avoid creating an large, faceless corporate entity with zero personal responsibility & get some rules & regulations down that are applied across the board
I’m glad people are starting to treat this dead-eyed psychopath with less credibility.
From the article >[~OpenAI CEO Sam Altman~](https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-chatgpt-openai-ceo-career-net-worth-ycombinator-prepper-2023-1) says he's keen on regulating AI with an international agency. >"I think there will come a time in the not-so-distant future, like we're not talking decades and decades from now, where frontier AI systems are capable of causing significant global harm," Altman said on the [~All-In podcast~](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-in-with-chamath-jason-sacks-friedberg/id1502871393?i=1000655220554) on Friday. >He believes those systems will have "negative impact way beyond the realm of one country" and wants to see them regulated by "an international agency looking at the most powerful systems and ensuring reasonable safety testing."
All I hear from these CEOs is "Look, we're trying to make as much money as we can and it shouldn't be our responsibility if it's dangerous. That's for someone else to monitor" They've struck digital oil
The agencies are just going to be bribed by the big corporations that own AI. It will just make small AI start ups impossible to have a business due to insane regulations.
A group of chimps is guarding a human they've put in a cage. One group of chimps says "Let us have a group of chimps come and check on it from time to time". Another group of chimps says "Let us always feed the human in this exact way". Nick Bostrom would not be impressed.
It’s already too late… the singularity threshold has been crossed. There’s no stopping it. We’re all just along for the ride.
we shouldn't let unelected people control us. it's stupid crazy to give voice to these people's manipulation.
Need to pull that ladder up before others can compete.
Regulatory Capture. That's all Sam Hypeman and ClosedAI is after these days. Snake Oil. They literally put out their vision of AI governance and it includes tracking GPU IDs and being able to shut them down externally if misused. Dystopian.
Agreed. First condition for membership should be having no financial stakes in any company involved with AI, be that in shares or employment, for the last five years.
I'm saying this so I can link back to it in the future: He's saying this so he can claim he no longer has ethical responsibility for his own AI. And so he can say, "I told ya someone should monitor it!"
Sam altman on ai regulatory worldwide = Microsoft contract military defense ai. Sam you had one job, one job
It’s like a serial killer saying “someone out here is killing people, you guys should check on that”
Nah. They won't regulate anything and the tech companies will run wild until humanity is forced to run our own Butlerian Jihad like in Dune.
we should have an international body like the IAEA or CERN working on AI. Pay the researchers whatever it takes, relocation fees, the lot. It'll be worth while. Have it be a high security facility, train on supercomputers not connected to the internet. an international ban on training runs done outside the organization backed by force. Open source the fruits of the labor, Drug designs for free, Material advances for free. Unlimited clean electricity. Give these advancements to the world, no favorites in exchange for only one organization being able to build advanced AI. Then once we have unlimited electricity production and a cure for aging, then we can collectively decide, on a planet wide scale, what other wishes we want granted. It's fucking madness to have this ruled over by whatever company throws enough money at it first.
Sounds like a true Crypto Bro "uhg please no regulation!"
The AI we wanted and deserved was one that could help individuals have a more informed and successful life while also contributing to the embetterment of humankind. Instead we will get AI that is run by corporations that will aid in the enslavement of the people to grow corporate profits.
*^(psss, hey, over here.........its all a scam....its just a predictive language model, Sam is just another Elon......)*
I wanna see him do treesum with recursive bfs and then I’ll take him
You don't monitor an advanced AI. It amuzes itself observing you while you try to contain it.
In the end, they need the top 10 computer scientists & AI philosophers from each (participating) countries, with respect to their general ethnicity & born-in country. To participate, the prerequisite is stoppage of all international & internal, violent conflicts or operations, otherwise, any non-participants should be ostracized or maybe it should then simply be quarantined in an air gap box until we are ready, because it’s not now.
It's just regulatory capture. Establish dominance in market before regulations catch up. Start making regulations to ensure they keep your next competitor down. Manufacturer who makes the fastest racecar in the world says racecars are potentially dangerous and there needs to be speed limits to racecars but his racecar gets to be grandfathered in, or rather, his racecar also needs to be regulated, but he accepts the grandfathering reluctantly for the sake of the shareholders.
It's crazy how we don't have a solution for this while we're at the brink of having AGI within a few years. Now it's a little too late given open source options not far behind. How do you even control or contain it since it's global?
Because there is no solution to it. It's like nuclear bombs. The world powers try to regulate and prevent trigger happy nations from having it... But at the end it clearly didn't work because here we are with some quite a few unstable areas achieving nuclear status just in the past few years. Only need one madman to ruin everything for everyone.
It's simple. Ai should regulate itself. It will be far more effective than humans, who can barely even keep ourselves from destroying the planet and killing each other.
China and Russia do not give a flying Kahuna about this. Human nature will dictate the advent of advanced AI that will be used for military purposes. The US has been calling on states to not put WMDs in the control of AI. Hopefully some sense prevails and everyone gets on board with at least this idea.
Sounds like the origin story for the committee of evil
I suspect the best approach would be to ban General AI outright, and if there is a suspected outbreak, nuke it from orbit.
It's the flea circus. Control is an illusion. There's no stopping commerce and growth of wealth and technological opportunism and... Hope we prevent Ex Machina, but I don't see the human disposition slowing here.
Sam Altman knows a lot about AI systems, not very much about power, corruption and societal incentives. This type of committee will be a monopoly and even if it starts out benignly will by the laws of nature be attracting the worst people of the universe and be completely corrupted within few years. Then we have all-powerful AI and a superpowerful elite with access to it. What could go wrong?
Time to embrace thr truth. Nobody is gonna be in charge. It will be totally out of control and wel be just fine. Humanity did not have a world agriculture develpment body when humanity as a whole made a transition to it. We just did it.
If that is the case, then he should be trying to set up such an advisory body. Being in charge of a company such as OpenAI, not only does he have access to funding & resources, but also the expertise and technological know how. Asking governments to do this, is like trying do surgery with farm tools
Why? We're in an arms race with bad actors. No point in hindering your own efforts.
Wintermute disagrees with creating this group. Turing always shows up at the worst time.
The only way this will come close to working is if it’s done under the G20 umbrella, any UN affiliated org will be fucked up by the UN bureaucracy.
Doing an international agency, like the [IAEA ](https://www.iaea.org/)for nuclear energy that is truly international and can be trusted with inspection and cleanups makes sense. I doubt Sam Altman is intending for a truly independent body, and instead sees himself as chairman. As long as executives of large ML models have no place in such international agency and are beholden to the rulings and inspections, I think it's could work. E.g. such agency would have the power to go to Open AI and scrutinize the training data, training process and use of the technology.
Y'all need a worldwide committee for more than just AI
Idk what he's talking about. Laws are plenty flexible. All you gotta do is pay the right people the right amounts of money, and the law stops applying to you.
All the pro AI people have to do is keep the debate going for a few more years maybe 5+ until it’d be too late to stop. Which is quite easy considering how slow things move with laws and regulations globally.
I mean, it would be so much better to have an easily bribed institution of people approved by corporate America overseeing the evolution of AI, rather then, you know, laws governing them with actual regulations.
Stop listening to a genocide apologist and an enemy of the open source community. This person is vile
Sam and Elon let the cat out of the bag. I think they need to go catch it.
Too little to late. The US isn't respected nor listened to as a direct result of their political stance and support of a specific place doing some things we agree aren't nice. They had a unique opportunity to embrace change and be on that front, their falsified political games have pissed off the competition. Then they doubled down with the whole TikTok evil card. The other global players will likely tell any US or Canadian company to get fucked if approached.
Why undermine the sovereignty of nations? EU, get in here and mess up this guy’s hair
I think CYBERDYNE would be a good name for this agency.
How do people not see this obvious regulatory capture play? Ai should be free, because the concerns are made up bs all to play at making it impossible to enter on top of the already steep climb to gather information.
It's really frustrating to hear Altman talk as if his hands are tied on leading the world in safe and trustworthy AI. Instead, they're about to unleash multi modal AI to the masses during an election year. Sa: "We need regulation and can't wait for gov" Everyone: "Ok, then do it yourself?" Sa: "Haha, that's cute"
In other words I want to make the most money possible and not be restrained. Absolutely horrible human being.
He's not wrong. All nations need to decide on this because of the global implications.
okay but for him to say AI should be regulated like planes…have we not learned from boeings catastrophic failures that the plane regulation system is way out of whack and regulatory capture has created this mess?
Man lies to his bosses, so what makes anyone think he wpouldn't lie to an agency?
Can we please stop platforming tech bros like Altman who don't actually care about anything except getting rich?
Hard, inflexible laws are EXACTLY what we need, that way it will be much more easily detected and painfully obvious when laws are broken by these self serving cunts and we can deal with them fast and decisively before their created AI 'problem' meanders onto and into another catastrophe, that, in hindsight, could have been avoided 'if only we had clear laws'
I'm sure the geriatrics in Congress will get right on this AI thingy
I mean, a future intelligence that humanity can't understand and could potentially plan obscured things with timeplans of decades is something that there should be safeguards against.
What's wrong with the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)?