This book is middling at best. From a literary perspective it's terrible. It reads like GPT-3.5 wrote it. Now from an introduction to a new idea perspective and understanding how AI will affect society, its __fine__. The book is full of contradictions. Suleyman regularly points out how we've __never__ successfully constrained a disrupting technological innovation and then says we NEED to here. I mean, absolutely absurd stuff. Ostensibly ends on an optimistic note, but is actually much more nihilistic.
back
5 comments
The begging for regulatory capture in the AI business is so egregious that I think the government should nationalize all the AI companies 'to keep us safe' but really to prevent these shysters from making money.
Hmm, didn't we do this for cloning? I remember hearing about this on Lex Fridman when he interviewed Max Tegmark.
If I recall correctly, the entire world is in agreement that cloning is illegal, and even that some people in China (could be just one) even went to prison for it.
If you could use cloning to make lots of money more labs would be doing it.
You probably could make lots of money from human cloning, if it weren't illegal?
If I could clone myself, I'd make a few bug fixes.
I think the profitability of human cloning is significantly lower and slower than AI.
I mean isn't the end-game here growable organs and an unlimited supply of morally justifiable stem-cells for use in a variety of therapies? Given what Interferons etc... already cost, I'm struggling to see how there isn't a direct and established line of profitability for the domain.
Health is the only thing that gives an ulterior advantage to people involved with managing the companies, much more important than money or profitability. They can try those things on themselves behind the scenes to extend their lifespan/healthspan.
If they didn't do it with cloning it might be that there is some sort of mechanism preventing it that Nature installed in our brains.
Don't know if it extends to AI too though.
Cloning doesn't scale like code. Code information wants to be free and can be reproduced easily with mouse clicks, but cloning is a lot of hard work. All the instructions for cloning could be leaked on the internet and you still have to build a lab, hire people that know what they are doing, etc. And who can profit from making a bunch of damn kids in this era?
“Everybody wanna be a bodybuilder, but don't nobody want to lift no heavy ass weight.” -Ronnie Coleman
> It reads like GPT-3.5 wrote it
These days it would be surprising if an author didn't generate at least some of the text with AI, or direct an AI to improve the prose.
>we've __never__ successfully constrained a disrupting technological innovation and then says we NEED to here
These aren't mutually exclusive.
To put it mildly.
Eh, we've done a partially successful job constraining nuclear weapons beyond the US and the USSR/Russia. And, so far, we've constrained their use in war.
Nuclear energy as a whole is restricted to very few countries.
If it really costs tens of billions of dollars to make then it’s trivial to make a decision as a society about whether or not to build it.
Nothing that costs ten billion dollars gets built without the explicit or implicit consent of the public.
Internationally? If it’s a big enough deal the deterrent is strategic counter value.
We’re doing this deliberately. Maybe that’s good, maybe it’s bad, but it’s on purpose and it’s dishonest to say otherwise.