How to understand AI: it’s a tragedy of the commons, not an arms race | Vox
vox.com · 970 words · saved by 1 readers
AI progress presents problems. Elinor Ostrom outlined the solutions.
You’ve probably heard AI progress described as a classic “arms race.” The basic logic is that if you don’t race forward on making advanced AI, someone else will — probably someone more reckless and less safety-conscious. So, better that you should build a superintelligent machine than let the other guy cross the finish line first! (In American discussions, the other guy is usually China.) But as I’ve written before, this isn’t an accurate portrayal of the AI situation. There’s no one “finish line,” because AI is not just one thing with one purpose, like the atomic bomb; it’s a more…
saved by
related reading
- Tragedy of the commons - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- AI as Normal Technology | Knight First Amendment Instituteknightcolumbia.org
- The AI Arms Race Isn’t Inevitablepalladiummag.com
- Racing through a minefield: the AI deployment problemcold-takes.com
- Dario Amodei — Policy on the AI Exponentialdarioamodei.com
- The tragedy of the commons is a false and dangerous mythaeon.co
- Why AI Will Save the World | Andreessen Horowitza16z.com
- The Artificiality of Alignmentjoinreboot.org
- The Problem — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Economics and Transformative AI | Tom Cunningham – Tom Cunninghamtecunningham.github.io
- Breaking the Intelligence Curse - The Intelligence Curseintelligence-curse.ai
- What failure looks like — AI Alignment Forumalignmentforum.org