NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9703200" data-attributes="member: 42856">The issue at hand isn't what can be done, or what can the US reasonably do within its current legal framework. It's "what should we do". Killing all AI researchers and burn all the book containing knowledge about LLMs is certainly impractical, and some might find it ethically questionable, but it's a position one could hold as an answer to what we should do about AI, because such an answer isn't linked to what we can reasonably do. People explaining the reasoning leading them to proposing their solution shouldn't be impeded by feasability. Hey, at some point, the answer to "what shoud we do about slavery?" was "we should ban it", even if such issue was complicated and nuanced (and doing that in a country led to a civil war and several constitutional changes, so it was indeed complicated). I think the Sackler case, to be honest, would be difficult to replicate outside of the US legal and cultural framework, where for example marketing for drugs is allowed, including by having firms promote their products directly to medical professionals with little overview, and the fact that the companies misrepresented the risks associated with the products seems to be (though of course I claim no expertise on this domain) something that is extremely different from the way general purpose LLMs are marketed right now, where they actively discourage anyone for using it for several use cases. Sure, but when people here propose to ban AI (and not only general public LLMs) from giving medical advice, they oppose both types of use. If they don't want to conflate both, then they should state it. You're adressing, again what can be done, not what should be done. There are LLMs that aren't made by corporations, and if you don't want to trust them, then you could choose to trust models developped by state actors (Falcon), semi-state actors (Mistral), universities (Bloom)... Even if it is unlikely that you could convince all countries to ban commercial use of AI, it is a position one could, after all, defend. But realistically, if one considers that corporations are corrupt and states are corrupt, then all we have to do is just lie down and die.</blockquote>

Verification