China made trade groups with their regional rivals, so no, we do not see a similar response. China’s response is rooted in win-win diplomacy that improves the material conditions of all parties involved. It is less a moral calculation and more a material one that creates a moral authority.

Yes and that is a winning strategy. As another ml account highlighted, war with the global north did not end well for the USSR, which comparatively speaking was much more a peer in terms of power than the current Russia. China’s strategy is the one that recognizes that the tactics available flow down stream from material conditions.

Isn’t Brazil part of BRICS? Their strategy isn’t just to avoid war, they are building soft power at a time when the USA is burning goodwill for short term gain (though with Iran the only gains seem to be oil profits).

And yet China manages to take the high road with Taiwan, Japan, India, etc.

Ahh yes, “liberating” a population by bombing them. A policy shared by both NATO and Russia. Both should look at China’s example for an alternative path.

What does AM mean in this context?

Jreg is working on something to torture AI agents, so maybe that could convince the AI to kill itself

I mean even defining what is the “common good” is political and that is the point of the exercise. If art exists that is deemed bad for society then we tend to ban it. For example, there are people who define CSAM as art, but the cost to society is so great we don’t allow even the possession of such material.

Or dress up Patel as a racoon and send RFK in.

I wouldn’t mind being a garbage truck driver, but I do mind being forced to pee in a bottle to make a quota

Wanted to expand on what others have said about the randomness of LLMs being unsafe, because that response angers those who think “alignment” is the solution. Alignment is additional training to constrain the randomness to not do bad things like crime. But even the staff that works on aligning this software have their doubts about whether this process will make the software safe (this article), and even their own researchers are coming out and saying “oops, it did a crime” but in a way where it hypes the ability of the software (see other articles about it hacking). Then there is the recent news of OpenAi’s recent model that drops chain of thought observability (a feature the let’s you read what the model is “thinking”) - a very useful tool in reviewing whether the model is engaging in unsafe activities. They sacrificed observability for benchmark performance. This tells us the people developing this software don’t think it will ever be safe, but they are trying to spin it as “because it can out smart us” when in reality it is simply unpredictable and they are making it less predictable to make it more “capable”. If we started holding these companies accountable for these rogue hacks and psychotic episodes then we would start to see serious thought put towards these models being safe or at the very least guidelines around when not to use the models.

Here’s an idea: don’t use unsafe software where safety is needed.

He hath not failed to pester us with message

Yet nothing he said is untrue

Macklemore is not the best messenger on this, but who is without sin?

deleted by creator

I think it’s the other way around. They said we need to slow down AI so this story is now being told

I find this kind of response insufferable. It shifts the conversation from a systems critique to personal responsibility. You could have posted this in response the OP, and it would be equally on point and useless.

I have personalized ads turned of in YouTube and it seems half the ads are for gambling as of late.

Reminds me of something Alok said about playbooks: we focus on the books but forget to play.