Obviously that is one of the needs. It clashes with zero-sum game mentalities - and they are part of what needs to be overcome (further questions for the superconsultants).
> Hands Off the Wheel (Automated Driving) - October 2015 // The Oracle of AI (Kai-Fu Lee) - January 2019 // Kings of the Road (Automated Trucking) - March 2020 // Deepfakes - July 2022 // The AI Revolution (Part 1) - July 2023 // The AI Revolution (Part 2) - July 2023 // Godfather of AI (Geoffrey Hinton) - June 2024 // Your Chatbot Will See You Now (AI in Medicine) - July 2024 // Quantum Computing - July 2024 // Nvidia - December 2024 // Humans in the Loop (Outsourcing work to train AI) - June 2025 // A Tutor for Every Student (AI in Classrooms) - July 2025 // Demis Hassabis (Google DeepMind) - August 2025 // Anthropic - November 2025 // Here Come the Humanoids - June 2026 // The Knowledge (Autonomous Taxis) - July 2026
A large part of the world (possibly Nations-transversal, in different amounts) does not work within the boundaries of legal guarantees. Wealth is not an effective enough protection.
Which is exactly the same as the submission's post, obvious interpretations of "AI" aside: how can we implement Intelligence without enabling superintelligence at the same time?!
And of course we must implement Intelligence, finally: we have implemented further morons, of which we already had plentiful abundance - already the LLM stage must be corrected!
We might agree or disagree with the statement that AGI and ASI are dangerous (economically, societally, existentially) and research needs to be paused- which means making their development (temporarily) illegal. If you accept that it is the case, though, you need to accept that there are penalties for those who violate the law.
What you wrote makes no sense in the chain: "If you accepted that C were a crime than C should be sanctioned" - this is not the point. Who argues against that non-matter?
You stated that the submission did not represent the facts because the facts are about banning «research on ASI», and you were replied that what we are doing in the LLM direction cannot be other than researching ASI. And you were told: and we must, because we cannot be contented with morons.
> You stated that the submission did not represent the facts because the facts are about banning «research on ASI»,
No. I stated that the submission is idiotic because the point is that the law wants to severely restrict AI research at least for some time. Agreee, disagree, I don't care. It's not proposing to jail people who are AI researchers by trade or specialisation, or who conducted AI research in the past. It's proposing to make further research illegal, therefore imposes penalties on those who would illegally pursue it- be they researchers, managers, financers, movie villains, companies, etc.
How can you interpret «developers and researchers working on advanced AI» as «people who are AI researchers by trade or specialisation, or who conducted AI research in the past» - nobody in their sanity would understand that.
Or are you complaining against the brevity of the title - knowing that we have to fit the title into a short space?
There are really no possible misunderstandings in the submission.
reply