As Arod suggests it's time to think beyond individual countries. You said it yourself when describing one of the precepts of SB 53:"... the framework rests on the notion that AI will not be controllable--that stopping the diffusion of potentially dangerous capabilities is impossible--and that therefore today’s “frontier” capabilities will be broadly dispersed within a short while." Rather than suggest that China and the US (and everybody else) now have a mutual interest in coming up with an international architecture to manage ungoverned diffusion of AI you double down on "preparing defenses." Can we get ahead of a catastrophe for once?
Just as a moderating comment - to detect many of these historically present vulnerabilities, Claude requires access to the source code - which in most cases is not public or available to hackers. It can, of course, also find vulnerabilities in running code, but not to the extent it can from the source. One would assume that all significant open-source code would be analyzed quite soon, and than subsequent releases would also be analyzed.
This is not to say that Claude doesn't represent a significant threat. But it can also be looked at as a resource that will, over time, reduce that threat.
From the peanut gallery, what, if anything, can individuals do for self/-defense? Hoi polloi like myself employ strong passwords, 2FA, VPN, etc., but these, I guess, will be like digging foxholes against ballistic missiles. Are we simply at the mercy of labs and software giants?
I was very much with you until that last piece. Maybe its me not being an american, but i think it is much of a Western / global issue than it is american. I hope America wings it, but at the same time I hope more societies will be a part of winging it (i fully agree that we are at the point of winging it).
You can also count on it that there are at least 20+ Israeli cybersecurity teams working on it right now. With a challenge like Mythos you'll need them too.
Dean, love reading your thoughts on this. As a mathematical biologist who contended with the dangerous gain of function EO and also developed AI tools for national security applications, I feel there are major opportunities to do good in tech policy these days.
Would love to chat more sometime - I believe there are common threads across tech policy that could help us accelerate across tech areas without undermining NatSec. Lmk if you’re keen, otherwise look forward to reading your thoughts.
As Arod suggests it's time to think beyond individual countries. You said it yourself when describing one of the precepts of SB 53:"... the framework rests on the notion that AI will not be controllable--that stopping the diffusion of potentially dangerous capabilities is impossible--and that therefore today’s “frontier” capabilities will be broadly dispersed within a short while." Rather than suggest that China and the US (and everybody else) now have a mutual interest in coming up with an international architecture to manage ungoverned diffusion of AI you double down on "preparing defenses." Can we get ahead of a catastrophe for once?
Just as a moderating comment - to detect many of these historically present vulnerabilities, Claude requires access to the source code - which in most cases is not public or available to hackers. It can, of course, also find vulnerabilities in running code, but not to the extent it can from the source. One would assume that all significant open-source code would be analyzed quite soon, and than subsequent releases would also be analyzed.
This is not to say that Claude doesn't represent a significant threat. But it can also be looked at as a resource that will, over time, reduce that threat.
From the peanut gallery, what, if anything, can individuals do for self/-defense? Hoi polloi like myself employ strong passwords, 2FA, VPN, etc., but these, I guess, will be like digging foxholes against ballistic missiles. Are we simply at the mercy of labs and software giants?
I was very much with you until that last piece. Maybe its me not being an american, but i think it is much of a Western / global issue than it is american. I hope America wings it, but at the same time I hope more societies will be a part of winging it (i fully agree that we are at the point of winging it).
You can also count on it that there are at least 20+ Israeli cybersecurity teams working on it right now. With a challenge like Mythos you'll need them too.
Dean, love reading your thoughts on this. As a mathematical biologist who contended with the dangerous gain of function EO and also developed AI tools for national security applications, I feel there are major opportunities to do good in tech policy these days.
Would love to chat more sometime - I believe there are common threads across tech policy that could help us accelerate across tech areas without undermining NatSec. Lmk if you’re keen, otherwise look forward to reading your thoughts.
Does this mean hackers and software busters will go out of business?