Stop with the threats and just fucking do it. This shit is why everyone thinks the Dems are useless.
Did he buy into their hype claims of sentient AI?
Just like they told people not to clone. Mostly the rich are cloning to harvest organs for themselves. Hopefully their “AI” will fuck that up for them somehow.
What will the senate do? Lol Americans and their pathetic signal politics
This comment section is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
Stop the investment, most importantly.
Bernie Sanders sadly didn’t get the message and wants the American government to own 50% of the stock of major AI companies instead, which means the government would have an even bigger reason to invest more in them.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has proposed a remittance tax on certain artificial intelligence companies amounting to 50% of the company’s outstanding equity interests. Sanders says these equity interests could be used to establish a sovereign wealth fund, with annual direct payment distributions to Americans
What the fuck are you talking about no he doesn’t lol? None of what you said is true or makes sense. He wants AI stock wealth to be given back to the people.
There is nothing in there about the government owning the stock or even benefiting from the stock?
I’m not sure what’s up with the hostility and calling everybody here dumb, but the page says stock.
The remittance would comprise equity interests, which for a corporation, would mean stock.
Bernie says stock:
through a one-time 50% tax on the stock of the biggest AI companies
And it would be run by the government:
seven members nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate
Right now that means Donald Trump and the Republican majority have the upper hand.
Because they’re saying dumb things and unfortunately holding hands and being shy about someone’s straight lack of thinking doesn’t really get people to see the point. The comments in this section state:
- Bernie is both not doing his job(he is) and benefitting from this/AI
-AI is both bad and worthless but also dangerous and Bernie is dumb for trying to do anything (complete fallacy of the weak/dangerous threat kind, the enemy is both weak but dangerous. Silly)
-Absolutely fake claims like the one above.
So the whole comment section is just rife with stupidity. Stupid isn’t even a bad word.
Back to what you said. I literally don’t understand why you act like it says stock changes anything or anything about what I said? Literally useless points you keep highlighting. Nothing is made more clear by whatever you’re trying to say.
Donald Trump already had the upper hand he doesn’t care about the rule of law. Dunno why you’re viewing this like game of thrones.
Bernie Sanders wants the wealth amassed by these AI companies which have stolen data and work of billions of people across generations to be handed back to the people. His strategy is to tax the STOCK (not sure why we’re bolding it but sure I’ll play along). He is following the regular ruling that stands for creating panels, legislative bodies, committee establishment process. The president nominates THE SENATE CONFIRMS(because you glossed over that part) this is literally the standard practice.
So I don’t understand what you think you’re making clear or how what he’s doing is wrong here. He’s following the rules and wants to tax the stock of companies that have taken advantage of Americans. It literally makes complete sense and is nothing like what the comment above claims.
The comment above suggests the government will own the stock? Or something ridiculous and Bernie wants to give that power to the president. Which is what I imagine an insane person’s interpretation of that article might be if they didn’t know anything about government functions or something. So in conclusion, it’s a very stupid interpretation.
The “tax” just transfers shares of the for-profit companies into a State organization.
So CEOs like Elon Musk will keep using them as CSAM generators, while the State is incentivized to keep them profitable… Even though we have no reason to assume they’ll ever turn a profit.
AI should not be treated as “too
biginevitable to fail” and yet here Bernie is.The president nominates THE SENATE CONFIRMS(because you glossed over that part) this is literally the standard practice.
Re-read my previous comment. I mentioned the Republican-controlled Senate explicitly. Did you need it to be in bold too or what?
Onward the Butlerian Jihad! No prisoners!
Great idea to give China a huge leap forward on the west.
A huge leap forward into being inundated with slop? Oh, no…
They already have a leap forward on the west, you’re just blind to not see it
This assumes LLMs to be a strategically vital technology, which it’s often treated as with little apparent reason, highlighted again and again.
Moreover, Chinese models are commonly open and you can freely run or study them.
Those are just the models that we know about
Is that conspiracy kicking in? Besides, it is still LLMs. Like, these are text-generating things, not weapon-grade AI. The absolute worst they can do is be used to assist hacking, and modern models coming from the US are already very good at vulnerability detection and pentesting. Not to mention the best defense against that is not AI, but standardized and strictly enforced network security.
Security? In this vibeconomy?
Precisely. If we want to keep our systems safe, we need not an extra AI, but strict adherence to well-established practices. Vulnerability in networks comes from lackluster execution of well-known, well-documented security measures.
Leave AI as an extra level of pentesting, it already does such things brilliantly.
They bought the senate Bernie
Any pause will have to be a global treaty; the unfortunate reality is that we’re in an arms race now, and despite Sanders’ threats otherwise, I don’t think there is going to be much will to pause in the US while China keeps developing.
And to be clear, I think it would be every wise to pause development and, afterwards, keep the pace slow. We know how to make “AI” more capable, but we don’t know how to make it stay aligned with human goals. The technology is useful and isn’t going anywhere, but that doesn’t mean we have to develop it as quickly as possible without regard to the real dangers it brings with it.
Arms race
Woah, we’re talking LLMs here, this is not a secret military technology. And China is very open about the developments made there - you can freely study and reverse engineer plenty of Chinese models, and see all the weights out in the open.
This whole race about them is, in my opinion, nothing but trying to pump the bubble even faster, churning the economy in the process and playing on gullible or self-interested politicians. Countries will be just fine assessing risks and then moving on.
Any pause will have to be a global treaty
Which is why tech CEOs love to promote it. They know it’ll never happen.
We know how to make “AI” more capable, but we don’t know how to make it stay aligned with human goals.
“Alignment” is almost entirely a myth cooked up by AI companies who want to make their word generators sound scarier than they are. There’s no such thing: the next word generator generates next word. It’s unpredictable because it’s built that way. “Hallucination” and “going rogue”, all poor terms and pathetic attempts to fearmonger and humanize, are identical functions to “working” and “aligning”.
The technology… isn’t going anywhere
The “it’s just inevitable” cliche rears its ugly head again.
Alignment is a real thing, though it can be a less than apt description. Mostly the goals you write out and the goals you want to happen not being the same thing. You can also have alignment issues where the dataset doesn’t match the real data in some way and the classifications break down. (I am not an AI defender I am very anti-AI)
I thought alignment was just preventing the llm from making porn or bomb recipes to avoid legal trouble
That cliche is the worst. If applied to anything else you can see how absurd it is. Like NFTs aren’t going anywhere, crime isn’t going anywhere, etc.
Except NFTs were never used to nearly even close to the same amount as AI, it had much less usecases and the one that did “catch on” was idiotic.
Crime is a symptom of a problem, not a technological advancement, apples and oranges.
AI the tool is never going away in the same way the internet is never going away. (Barring our entire civilization collapses and we lose knowledge/connectivity/life lmao)
“AI is never going away” neither did NFTs nor crime, nor anything else really. We should try to stop these awful companies from doing awful things.
The point of the “its not going away” comment is because a shocking number of people think the solution to AI is to, I dunno, delete it.
As a technology, it is out in the world. It isn’t going away any more than electricity or the internet. So any solutions to the real problems with AI that are essentially “make it go away” are essentially nonsense. Might as well propose wishing it away with a genie.
“It’s not going away” is not equivalent to “there’s nothing we can do to solve the problems”; it just means that the solution has to be in a framework where it is implemented alongside AI.
That is a solution, make it very unappealing to use it. If it’s clearly a crime, most people don’t have the hardware to do it, and others don’t have the motivation, it’d help a lot. And again, NFTs
Most people do have the hardware to run them. Maybe not super high end ones but middle of the road ones.
Again, the solution won’t ever be “no more AI”. The solution will be regulation, social safety nets, taxation, etc.
I agree?
Then what’s the point of saying that line? It’s a pointless line that means to put down any solution to the problem saying “well, actually, it’ll never go away!” instead of thinking about how one could drastically reduce the harm by trying to make it go away anyways
Because the underlying problem isn’t the tool.
Your opinion is borne from lack of knowledge about the topic you’re trying to discuss, similar to an anti-vaxxer attempting to discuss the dangers of mRNA vaccines.
Fix your lack of knowledge or don’t; that’s your call, but if you care about discussing this topic somewhat intelligently, you should probably put in some effort to understand it.
Wow. What an awful person.
I said several things so how about you actually address them, instead of resorting to an insult and vaguely telling me to “do my research”?
Do you deny this latest wave of companies doing the exact same routine is a PR stunt, or that companies badly want regulatory capture, or what?
I meant no insult, truly. You just don’t have the minimum required knowledge to discuss this intelligently. There’s no shame in that; no one can know everything.
I can’t know the motives of anyone, but I can say it’s at least plausible that the people working on the frontier models want an excuse to slow down that doesn’t give an advantage to other countries and companies, and also doesn’t put them in the crosshairs of investors and board members.
You apparently still internalize LLMs as fancy Markov chains, which tells me that you don’t have a working grasp to discuss the topic, even at the laymen level we’re at.
These hacking events may be “PR Stunts”, but the “stunt” part would be leaving a known vulnerability as a path to the wider Internet instead of making it physically impossible to break out, not the hacking of other websites. No one credible is disputing that these models are capable of hacking.
I meant no insult
Uh-huh. You compared me to an antivaxxer , implying that people who disagree with you don’t believe in science or technology - the same reason you felt the need to throw in the “inevitability” cliche. Which I do not buy, and somebody claiming to understand the technology should never repeat.
Later, you say anyone who disagrees with you just feels “desperate” and “threatened.” You’re really pulling everything from the “I am rational and you are neurotic” playbook aren’t you.
I can’t know the motives of anyone, but I can say it’s at least plausible that the people working on the frontier models want an excuse to slow down that doesn’t give an advantage to other countries and companies, and also doesn’t put them in the crosshairs of investors and board members.
It’s all the same song and dance. Dario Amodei screams “hold me back!” because he loves pretending his product is Great and Powerful.
Why do these developers never talk about real harms like the environmental damage they cause? How about the psychosis they are liable to fall into?
It’s pretty obvious they’re just doing marketing, knowingly or not. And these are smart people who should know better.
@XLE I reported the little troll.
Computer science is still science. You distrust the experts in the field based on what? Something you saw on social media? Certainly not your own expertise, that much is clear.
Don’t move the goalposts. No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides. That’s different than your original claim that they didn’t do what they appear to do.
I don’t suppose you happen to be in a field threatened by AI? In my anecdotal experience, the people that desperately want to pretend AI is all a scam are actually worried about the opposite, and their job. (A real concern I’m in no way trying to minimize.)
I can’t tell if you’re reading what I’m writing. I mention CEOs twice and you assert I’m not listening to “The Experts”.
No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides.
You mean climate damage and psychosis?
Zero of the “experts” in your strained theory about looking for excuses to “pause” AI ever talk about them. It’s almost like they don’t want to imply their product is unworthy of all the hype, doomerism and fearmongering.
Removed by mod
It’s beyond “an arms race.” AI has become a commodity that’s everywhere and it’s being used and developed by zillions of completely different groups all over the world with wildly varying use cases and completely different goals.
At this point, trying to ban it would be like trying to ban dandelions from growing.
The groups doing frontier research with the appropriate funding are few enough that a global pause would be possible, and useful.
I agree that a ban would be impossible, and counterproductive even if it were possible.
Except when you think about if a ban were actually implemented it would absolutely be pro-entrenched companies like OpenAI and Anthropic and open weight models could be banned outright, I’ve already seen well-intentioned but misguided “experts” saying exactly that, BAN open weight models and pause further development, who would that benefit directly?
Order Nvidia and AMD to stop selling AI GPUs or whatever they’re called.
Which country is doing the ordering?
If he can get senate action on AI then why can’t he get senate action on all the other plethora of crap happening to us right now?
He cant, but he wants to. Which is important.
We should never take something away from an action with good intentions, just because others want to stop him.
Thats not how we get the change in the end. Because someday it might succeed.
Why is he even bothering to do his job if he’s struggling to do his job? He should just be shitty and useless like the others! /S
oh good luck with that bernie… while he’s not wrong, there’s too much money passing hands for this to be a threat
Acctually its the same $20 being passed around they have just really improved the speed and efficiency of passing it on.
“I’m not gay, but $20 is $20.”
Sam Altman has entered the chat
What Senate action will he take? Have a hearing when the senators will try to get sound bites in for reelection?
Yeah why should he do his job why isn’t he just being useless like the rest! /S
At this point US Senat actions (especially those by Democrats) seem even less effective than European serious concern.
EU actually gets changes done tho.
Sure, but the serious concern is the least efficient tool they have.
This is playing into their hand. “Oh your tech is so amazing and powerful and must be paused!”
Nah. It’s a bullshit bubble that’s threatening to tear down world order, or what’s left of it.
This isn’t playing into anyone’s hand I don’t understand what the hell you’re saying lol
Ever heard of critihype? These companies are pretending their tech is so amazing it’s dangerous to create hype, and Bernie is perpetuating that marketing ploy by responding this way.
Again, I literally don’t understand what you’re saying. Not because what you’re saying doesn’t make sense but the conclusion you’re drawing and your interpretation is absurd.
You are not only not right, you’re not even wrong.
Yes they work to hype tech for investors. No Bernie is not perpetuating anything by saying this that’s just so silly. AI genuinely will be used and make money and this tech isn’t going to disappear, it does have value not this much value but it’s genuinely cutting edge and will likely be in many industries. Bernie has no political or personal interest in that, he is stating the lawlessness and recklessness of this tech needs to be roped in by the government which is his job.
I literally don’t understand how you got to your conclusion that AI tech is useless and Bernie is supporting it by saying this. It’s just the thinking of someone whose brain has been rotted by the idea that AI=BAD.
AI is just a boring tool to do boring things, things I use it for. I’m not a single minded ideological purist. If Bernie wants to rope in the shitty business practices by hyperscalers, say that. Don’t headline “pause AI development” because that is exactly what critihype is.
edit: by the way, you are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never said or implied AI is useless, just that there is a bubble fueled by bullshit. You’re jumping to conclusions not warranted by the original comment.
AI is literally a fantastic pattern recognition technology and has the ability to take complex information and visualize it in ways a human mind cannot. Those are pretty useful.
Not sure how you think what he’s doing is critihype. Never put any words in your mouth. Don’t understand why the headline, Bernie didn’t write, has to be changed when everything he said is pretty true.
You did imply AI is useless you literally just reaffirmed that calling it boring. Never jumped to any conclusion, the conclusion I came to was that your perspective is goofy and literally matches the AI is both bad and dangerous. A bubble is dangerous.
Boring is not the same as useless. Again, you’re bending over backwards to miss the point. It’s like talking to a wall. Your personal incredulity towards my opinion in no way invalidates it, saying you don’t understand or think it’s silly is not an argument.
Lol okay buddy.
