DS @MergerDude

Entrepreneur and poker player. Dallas, TX Joined April 2011

Tweets

380
Followers

138
Following

2K
Likes

15K

DS @MergerDude

15 hours ago

@DeryaTR_ That’s so awesome and inspiring Derya!! And great job at Dev Day today. Was so cool to hear about your work.

0 0 1 34 0

View Details

Mr. Clark, you are clearly an extremely intelligent person, probably more intelligent than 99.9% of people. So why should your intelligence remain largely unregulated? You, too, have the capacity to cause harm in ways that most people may not anticipate or understand. If the argument for restricting increasingly capable AI ultimately rests on protecting our children, from intelligence that might become dangerous, then why does that principle apply to only AI but not to highly capable humans? For example, your intelligence gives you enormous power. You can persuade people, influence governments, allocate billions of dollars, shape technology, and make decisions whose consequences ordinary people may not even understand until years later. You could potentially cause tremendous harm with that intelligence. Yet nobody proposes putting a capability ceiling on your brain. Nobody demands that others become less intelligent than them because that someone else might misuse their intelligence. Nobody argues that your ideas should require government approval before you are allowed to share them. If powerful intelligence itself is dangerous enough to justify restricting access to it, why does that principle suddenly stop when the intelligence belongs to the people making the rules? So when you appeal to the safety of our children as justification for restricting increasingly powerful AI, the principle deserves scrutiny. And there is another issue. You are completely free to slow down your own AI development. You can impose whatever safety requirements you want on your own company. You can even shut the entire project down if you believe that is morally necessary. But you do not automatically acquire the moral authority to slow down everyone else. That is where “AI safety” can quietly become something very different: a justification for concentrating intelligence inside a handful of corporations while preventing researchers, startups, universities, developers, and ordinary people from building comparable systems themselves. And that brings us to open source. Will you publicly support a simple principle? Open source AI should be allowed to reach at least the capability level of the strongest AI systems that frontier companies release to the general public, or slightly better. If millions of people are permitted to use your AI, why should independent researchers be prohibited from studying, modifying, or running a comparable capability themselves? If the answer is safety, then explain precisely why intelligence becomes uniquely dangerous when the public possesses it but acceptable when a corporation controls it. And who evaluates the people inside those corporations like yours? Some frontier AI employees, in particular in your organization, hold extraordinarily pessimistic beliefs about advanced AI. Some sincerely believe artificial superintelligence could destroy humanity. Maybe you are one of them, we don't know. They or you or your CEO are entitled to those beliefs. But those beliefs can influence enormously consequential decisions about what technologies billions of other people are allowed to access. So who audits their and your judgment? Who determines whether their risk estimates are reasonable? Who prevents ideological capture? Who protects society from a small group of highly intelligent people becoming so convinced that they alone understand the danger that they feel justified in deciding how much intelligence everyone else may possess? You cannot build the philosophy of AI governance around the proposition that concentrated intelligence is dangerous and then place unprecedented control over intelligence in the hands of a tiny group of extremely intelligent people who also control extremely powerful intelligence not available to the public. That contradiction sits at the heart of this debate. If intelligence creates power, then accountability must apply to the people controlling AI as much as to the AI itself. AI may become the greatest amplifier of human capability ever created. Its future affects every person on Earth. No handful of executives, safety boards, institutions, governments or self-appointed guardians gets to decide how much intelligence the rest of humanity is allowed to have. if concentrated intelligence creates danger, concentrating control over intelligence inside a few institutions like yours creates its own, perhaps even more serious danger.