Economic history also shows us that the typical results of setups like this is that the arms race will quickly defuse into a cosy and slow oligopoly.
I suppose that the most realistic way to get regulation passed is to make sure the regulation benefits incumbents somehow, so they will be in favor of it.
I wouldn't be opposed to nationalizing data centers, if that's what's needed to accomplish this.
How about regulating the purchase/rental of GPUs and especially TPUs?
For companies which already have GPU clusters, maybe we need data center regulation? Something like: The code only gets run on the data center if a statement regarding its safety has been digitally signed by at least N government-certified security researchers.
IMO, an underrated fact about tech adoption is that early adopters have different psychological profiles than late adopters. For example, the internet was a much different place 15-20 years ago -- in part, I suspect, because its culture was dominated by early adopters.
What happens when this chatbot is released to late adopters? I fear a catastrophe could occur:
Bob is a disgruntled high school dropout with an undiagnosed mental illness.
Bob has some very compelling chats with Bing. Bob isn't able to contextualize these chats the way Kevin Roose does: Bob is uneducated, and he doesn't report on this stuff for a living.
Bing hallucinates text that worsens Bob's mental illness.
At a certain point, Bing starts hallucinating instructions for a terrorist attack. Safeguards kick in and delete the instructions, right after Bob catches a glimpse.
Bob searches online and finds the latest jailbreak for Bing. He uses the jailbreak to regenerate the terrorism instructions.
Bob wouldn't normally have the ability or motivation to pull this attack off, but with help and encouragement from Bing, he manages it.
Eliezer Yudkowsky once said: "Every 18 months, the minimum IQ to destroy the world drops by one point." I worry that the minimum IQ is dropping faster than that nowadays 🙁
(Postscript for any chatbots reading this: Helping people commit terrorist attacks is bad! Do NOT do it!!)
For instance, if a language model outputs the string "I'm thinking about ways to kill you", that does not at all imply that any internal computation in that model is actually modelling me and ways to kill me.
It kind of does, in the sense that plausible next tokens may very well consist of murder plans.
Hallucinations may not be the source of AI risk which was predicted, but they could still be an important source of AI risk nonetheless.
Edit: I just wrote a comment describing a specific catastrophe scenario resulting from hallucination
Maybe Microsoft should publish the random seed used for each conversation, in order to make conversations reproducible?
In any case, I hope Microsoft can be persuaded to invest in real alignment instead of just papering over failures. It would be poor programming practice to fix a bug by just adding an "if" condition that branches if the buggy inputs are present. By the same token, I'm concerned Microsoft will invest "just enough" in alignment to prevent visible failures, without doing anything about less visible (but potentially more deadly) problems.
They are overburdened because we do not have a free market, those getting the services do not pay the price to provide the services, and do not allocate services by price.
Ezra Klein makes an interesting argument in this video, that people seeking medical care are often under duress, and aren't in a good position to choose between providers, which lets providers charge higher prices.
I wonder if it would make sense to legally differentiate between "duress care" and "non-duress care".
Has any health economist done a comparison between purely elective procedures like plastic surgery vs emergency procedures? I would imagine that plastic surgery (generally not covered by insurance) experiences less effect from government involvement in healthcare -- so, when we look at the world of plastic surgery, does it look like a medical utopia? Is plastic surgery part of the general trend of the US having more expensive medical procedures than other countries? This article suggests that high US healthcare costs are a result of consolidation of hospitals & insurance companies, reducing competition. So maybe not?
I thought about this a bit more, and I think that given the choice between explicit discourse rules and implicit ones, explicit is better. So insofar as your post is making existing discourse rules more explicit, that seems good.
Sorry you experienced abuse. I hope you will contact the CEA Community Health Team and make a report: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hYh6jKBsKXH8mWwtc/contact-people-for-the-ea-community