this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37702 readers
482 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Arms race" is the wrong mental model for AI. Here’s a better one.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Scrumpf_Dabogy@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So...let me get this straight. The "commons" here is the potential profit of AI. And the "tragedy" is that google isn't hoarding it and open source folks that are doing all the innovation are content to not make massive profits from their work?

If thats what this means, then I hope whatever their plan is to gain power or control over new AI tech fails. I hope the folks working on open source AI can separate their work from Meta's original work enough that Meta no longer has any claim to it.

[–] theinspectorst@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The tragedy of the commons is an economic and ecological concept concerning situations where private parties will overuse a common resource because private incentives and public interests aren't aligned. For example, overfishing or carbon emissions.

In this case, the problem as articulated in this article is that each party in the AI gold rush - Google, OpenAI, Baidu, etc - has an incentive to rush their AI development without adequate controls so they can get ahead of their competitors, potentially taking us into dangerous outcomes in which one of them produces AI that has far-reaching harmful consequences for humanity. I guess the 'commons' here is the future of human society, which AI developers have private incentives to take for granted.

The solution proposed is to adopt many of the classic solutions economists have devised for tragedies of the commons - points 1-8 in the article - and apply them to AI development in the ways set out in the article.