Vice-President JD Vance Charts a Path Forward for AI

14 Replies to “Vice-President JD Vance Charts a Path Forward for AI”

1. Watched it all. And the crowd did not go wild. Puddin head justain seemed somewhat surprised and indifferent but that’s to be expected. He had not gotten his thought order of the day perhaps.

   But all in all a very clear message of don’t fuk with us and do not get in the way. Very clear as to what the us government thinks

   1. that was weird but it is a brave new world. not sure what to say about Vance right there….
      However, as for justain the blue potato…he looked like the mid level bureaucrat sent to take notes, and ruthlessly struggling to capture the salient points, owing to him being fixated about catching Macron afterwards. although he did seem a bit stricken by Vance’s pitch.
      sorry about the run on sentence.
      whiskey and vitriol

2. It’s a very good speech – provided that he’s right that “AI will never replace human beings”, and that it never gets useful enough that anyone can use it to create their own bioweapons.

   In other words, it’s a good plan if AI progress stalls just a bit beyond present capabilities. In that case, applying the techonology will produce lots of productivity improvements, medical breakthroughs, and other good stuff, without major safety problems. (I’m not worried about chatbots saying bad words.)

   Unfortunately, I’d put the chance of AI progress stalling at that point at about 5%. It is much more likely that it progresses to the point where it can be used by bad actors in horrible ways, or ends up effectively dis-empowering humans altogether.

   Nobody has a good solution to this. Authoritarian regulations to stop anyone from building AI would be horrible. Wars to destroy other countries AI installations would be horrible. Hoping that AI will magically turn out to be highly moral is wishful thinking.

   But if there’s an acceptable solution of some kind, it’s not going to be found by pretending the problem doesn’t exist.

   1. Why would regulations against deploying AI to completely replace humans be worse than regulations against trafficking in children for sexual gratification?

      1. I’m not sure what you’re saying. Obviously, stopping AIs from killing all humans is more important even than stopping child sexual exploitation. Maybe you misinterpreted my remark that regulation to stop AI would be “horrible”. It would partly be horrible because it would eliminate the benefits of AI, but mostly mostly it would be horrible because it would require an authoritarian regime that would no doubt prohibit much else that shouldn’t be prohibited.

   2. A I is and always will be programing. That programming can be dangerous or useful.

      1. AI is “programming” in the same sense that people are “collections of atoms”. Collections of atoms can be dangerous or useful. These ways of looking at things are not helpful in understanding what exactly the dangers are. It’s not necessary for AI to have aquired some immaterial soul for it to be very intelligent and very dangerous.

         1. The danger is in believing it to be sentient.

3. The Europeans are not impressed by talk of freedom and enterprise. Total control of everything is all they think about.

4. Trudeau’s comments earlier, in the vein of “fighting disinformation” is pretty clear. The Globalists (and 3 letter agencies) intend to use AI to control information, media and speech.

5. Dis and mis regarding info would be lies.

6. Just imagine Kamala making that speech! Scary that she was even in the running for Pres.

   It seems the adults are in charge now. I wish them the best, knowing that there will be
   inevitable screw ups along with the successes.

   1. Like this….

      https://x.com/stl_catholic/status/1889347862422798642

7. If AI requires megawatt-hours of power, hundreds of thousands of CPU’s, and millions of lines of code. I predict lots of organic intelligence will be required to keep it all operational.