> Misrepresentation of where I'm coming from. I literally failed to consider the weapon potential of biologics in this case (silly me). I was only thinking about the fact that they cured (essentially) my psoriasis.
Thank you for the correction.
> Bad actors will always exist, but fortunately will always be outnumbered by good actors with access to the same tools. So while I understand your pressing for caution, I still think that your argument is nonsense; bad actors will always find uncensored AI while good actors continue to shackle themselves with censored AI that has failure modes which reduce actual ethical utility. I'm afraid to tell you that the cat is already out of the bag, dude. You're like the guy who wants to leave a sign saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED" just inside a daycare. "Sure, I'll get right on that," says the concealed-carry bad actor...
Guns are an excellent metaphor here, especially as with "good actors with access to the same tools" is a pattern-match to the incorrect statement that "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"*. Much of the world outside the USA neither has, nor wants to have, the 2nd amendment. Are gun bans perfect? No, of course not. But the UK (where I grew up) has far fewer homicides as a result, and last I heard when polled on issue even 2/3rds of the UK police feel safe enough to not desire to be armed (though three quarters would agree to carry if ordered).
Similarly, good actors using an AI can only cover the malignant use cases they themselves think of. Famously, the 9/11 attacks were only possible because at the time nobody had considered that anyone might weaponise the vehicles themselves until they saw it happen, which was also why of the four planes only one saw the passengers fighting back to regain control.
In particular, "bad actors will always find uncensored AI" suggests that all AI are equally competent. Right now, they're not all equal, the proprietary models are leading. Of course, even then you may argue that the proprietary models can be convinced to do whatever via the right prompt, and to an extent yes, but only to an extent.
The malicious users can only be slowed down (as opposed to the normal people who simply put too much trust into the current models who can be mostly prevented from harmful courses of action with the same guards). But AI provides competence that bad actors would otherwise not have, so even a simple guard will prevent misuse by nihilistic teenagers whose competence does not yet extend to the level of a local drug dealer let alone the competence of a state-sponsored terrorist cell.
Would you say that what stops bad guys using knives and fists is good guys with knives and fists? Why or why not? What makes guns different?
(The gun debate is my favorite one because there are IMHO strong arguments on both sides. Also, there is no way the US would have ever existed as an independent state if the US hadn't used guns to defeat the British, so it's stuck in the DNA of the United States for good.)
Personally my contrarian opinion is that we should make it very difficult for men below the age of 25, and any man going through a divorce and/or who lost a job, from being able to obtain a gun (in the latter case, "for some period of time" to be left for others to define). That would rule out like 90% of the problem, even if the solution is sexist.
Thank you for the correction.
> Bad actors will always exist, but fortunately will always be outnumbered by good actors with access to the same tools. So while I understand your pressing for caution, I still think that your argument is nonsense; bad actors will always find uncensored AI while good actors continue to shackle themselves with censored AI that has failure modes which reduce actual ethical utility. I'm afraid to tell you that the cat is already out of the bag, dude. You're like the guy who wants to leave a sign saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED" just inside a daycare. "Sure, I'll get right on that," says the concealed-carry bad actor...
Guns are an excellent metaphor here, especially as with "good actors with access to the same tools" is a pattern-match to the incorrect statement that "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"*. Much of the world outside the USA neither has, nor wants to have, the 2nd amendment. Are gun bans perfect? No, of course not. But the UK (where I grew up) has far fewer homicides as a result, and last I heard when polled on issue even 2/3rds of the UK police feel safe enough to not desire to be armed (though three quarters would agree to carry if ordered).
Similarly, good actors using an AI can only cover the malignant use cases they themselves think of. Famously, the 9/11 attacks were only possible because at the time nobody had considered that anyone might weaponise the vehicles themselves until they saw it happen, which was also why of the four planes only one saw the passengers fighting back to regain control.
In particular, "bad actors will always find uncensored AI" suggests that all AI are equally competent. Right now, they're not all equal, the proprietary models are leading. Of course, even then you may argue that the proprietary models can be convinced to do whatever via the right prompt, and to an extent yes, but only to an extent.
The malicious users can only be slowed down (as opposed to the normal people who simply put too much trust into the current models who can be mostly prevented from harmful courses of action with the same guards). But AI provides competence that bad actors would otherwise not have, so even a simple guard will prevent misuse by nihilistic teenagers whose competence does not yet extend to the level of a local drug dealer let alone the competence of a state-sponsored terrorist cell.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_guy_with_a_gun#Analysis