Two questions: 1. Have the "fud-spreaders" actually held anything back so far? Seems like we're barreling forward, even though some of the FUD spreaders appear to be in charge of the main companies. 2. Do you, like Huang, see absolutely no risk in our current approach? Is everyone who disagrees with your perspective on this subject just plain wrong? Misguided, or actively malicious/in bad faith?
Have the "fud-spreaders" actually held anything back so far?
I don't know. Astroturf campaigns to subvert data center construction seem to have had an impact, for example, but ultimately I can only fall back on vague vibes picked up from the news and social media. I don't know the specific success rate.
Some of those campaigns seem justified to me (why in the world do these things have to be built in populated areas?) while other arguments made by the anti-data center movement are certainly propagated in bad faith (Water usage? Really?)
Seems like we're barreling forward, even though some of the FUD spreaders appear to be in charge of the main companies.
That's just so much kayfabe. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
Do you, like Huang, see absolutely no risk in our current approach? Is everyone who disagrees with your perspective on this subject just plain wrong? Misguided, or actively malicious/in bad faith?
I can't speak for Huang as I don't know him personally, but he has to walk a tightrope between an infantilized POTUS with essentially unlimited power to wreck his business, and his own stockholders who have elevated his company's market cap to a level that probably doesn't make sense even to him. As far as I can tell he's just going the obvious, predictable, and safe route of trying to sell as many shovels and tents as he can while the selling is good.
I see a bigger downside in the precautionary principle than in accelerationism. We are going to face immense societal disruption due to AI over the next couple of decades. That is as unavoidable as an earthquake. It is going to happen regardless of who prevails in the political and social arguments going on today. There is no possible way that every actor in every country on Earth is going to be convinced or compelled to "pace the frontier." Consequently, all that matters is how we react, adapt, and take advantage of the new ground rules of reality.
As usual, there will be those who thrive and those who get steamrolled. But I see no reason why we won't all end up better off in the end, as with the rest of the history of technology since the invention of fire.
I was just having fun and pointing out that some dangerous technologies (or at least their applications) were pretty cool, at least if one ignores the danger. Radium dial watches and clocks were also pretty cool, but also remain radioactive long after they stop emitting light. Uranium glassware is attractive and fluoresces beautifully under UV light (and somewhat under daylight) but is mildly radioactive and can also potentially result in ingesting uranium.
GP might have been thinking of things like the inventions of the illustrious Thomas Midgley Jr. and his vigorous promotion of tetraethyl lead, etc.
GP might have been thinking of things like the inventions of the illustrious Thomas Midgley Jr. and his vigorous promotion of tetraethyl lead, etc.
Yep, that would be a much better example. Defending Midgley is a task for superintelligent AI if there ever was one.
Still, the underlying technology is not "leaded gasoline" but "internal combustion engines." The human condition would certainly be better if you could erase Midgley from history, along with the people who invented shoe-store fluoroscopes and radium paint, but it would be worse if you erased Roentgen, Otto and Diesel. Horses weren't the global-max of mobility and human brains aren't the apotheosis of reason.
