News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on US and UK refuse to sign AI safety declaration at summit. Parent comment

Re:US and UK refuse to sign AI safety declaration at summit by jddj on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @05:53AM (#43024052)
There are peaceful strategies that are temporarily stable in the face of actors who capitalise on peaceful actors to take their resources, but they usually (always?) take the form of quickly moving on when an aggressor arrives.

Eg. birds abandoning rather than defending a perch when another approaches.

We're typically not happy to do that, though you can see it happening in some parts of the world right now.

Some kind of enlightened state where violent competition for resources (incl. status & power) no longer makes sense is imaginable, but seems a long way off.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US and UK refuse to sign AI safety declaration at summit by Yoric on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @06:03AM (#43024118)
Just to clarify, who's the aggressor in what you write? The US?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US and UK refuse to sign AI safety declaration at summit by jddj on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @06:10AM (#43024168)
No one in particular. Russia would be one current example, Israel (and others in the region at various times) another, the US and Germany historically, the Romans, the Ottomans, China, Japan, Britain, Spain, warlords in the western sahara, the kid at school who wanted the other kids' lunch money.

The idea though is that if everyone suddenly disarmed overnight it would be so highly advantageous to a deviant aggressor that one would assuredly emerge.

[ Parent | on HN ]