Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
Hypothetically, would you rather have: 1. AI is not delayed, but the strongest AI, 10 years ahead of everyone else, is in the hands of a single very powerful multinational inter-governmental agency 2. All AI delayed by 10 years
56 replies
41 recasts
164 reactions
Mac Budkowski 🥝 pfp
Mac Budkowski 🥝
@macbudkowski
2. though it breaks my heart thinking about all the people who could get educated, healed and inspired by AI assistants
0 reply
1 recast
4 reactions
ʞɔɐſ pfp
ʞɔɐſ
@satoshi-767
Vitalik I’m confused. Why cast this 3 times? Bug? Anyways, definitely 10 years delayed; for reasons that seem obvious
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Colin Johnson pfp
Colin Johnson
@cojo.eth
If you ever want to deliver surveys like this through @survey , let me or @ba know. We can now deliver survey questions on demand along with visualized, aggregated results when complete 👍
2 replies
0 recast
9 reactions
YB pfp
YB
@yb
I only thought about this for 2 mins but my gut says #1. Public key cryptography was first discovered by GCHQ but Hellman & Diffie came to the same conclusion 5 years later anyways. My gut says that if a government has some AI that's so strong, the public will come to it sooner than later as well
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
yesyes pfp
yesyes
@yesyes
2 I've answered 2 in all the cases though I was leaning a bit towards 1 in this one. I don't think that a lot of people realise how powerful an AI that is 10 years ahead would be. At that point it would be practically impossible to catch up to it. OpenAI is like a year or 2 ahead of everyone and the gap hasn't closed
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Yix pfp
Yix
@yix
2
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
MrJudge 🛡️ pfp
MrJudge 🛡️
@mrjudge
two
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
GIGAMΞSH pfp
GIGAMΞSH
@gigamesh
2
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
ayan pfp
ayan
@gmo
I don’t think it is intentional, but creating hypothetical scenarios with false binaries like this can make it challenging to engage with AI ethical tech discussions in a meaningful and non-polarizing way This feels very American politics…👀
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
paden pfp
paden
@shoni.eth
1
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
shazow - p/oss pfp
shazow - p/oss
@shazow.eth
2 most likely, but could be convinced otherwise depending on the governance of 1 and what "in the hands of" means.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Serhii pfp
Serhii
@spartapro
Hm... It seems to me that the first option is better, since one high-quality product stimulates competitors to develop, not to sit still. Even if it is so powerful, analogues will still be built. Healthy competition should generate strong competitors that benefit the end user of the product.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Rakshita Philip pfp
Rakshita Philip
@awkquarian.eth
1. Because choice 2 doesn’t exist and isn’t a real option
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Salvino Armati pfp
Salvino Armati
@salvino
2. feels like the risks of giving a small group of people (who already have a monopoly on violence) infinitely available intelligence as a cornered resource is far greater than superlinear GDP growth being 1 decade behind
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
web3magnetic pfp
web3magnetic
@wish
Imo, 2 is better than 1
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Sina pfp
Sina
@sina99xp
Nice that is cool by all
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Branksy Pop pfp
Branksy Pop
@branksypop
Choose 2 and you'll end up with 1. Those who will regulate it will be the ones who profit before the regulated.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
kripcat.eth pfp
kripcat.eth
@kripcat.eth
2. Again. If technology is power (the ability to manifest one’s inner life on the external world) checked only by other technology. Then handing monopolised control of an advanced AI to any entity, is granting the ability to shape the world in their image and to their benefit. There’s no entity I trust that much
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Danny pfp
Danny
@mad-scientist
10 year delay. Giving basically unlimited power to one entity, and a government one at that, doesn't sound like a good idea.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction