How should access to dual-use AI be controlled?

Geez, like I just think it's such a complicated topic. It feels we're a little early for that. I don't love the idea of the United States doing it and no one else doing it. I, like I think in a world where we hold hands with China, like I think that's that's much more palatable and we're aligned and we trust each other and have kind of verification capabilities. I do think. Great.

Seek to 29:55

So we should probably do some sort of KYC so some crazy person doesn't create some biological weapon. I think that those are some reasonable ground rules. But otherwise, Friedberg is right. You have to take a little bit of a deterministic view here, which is that we are in this existential race and we need to get to the place where each of us, meaning us in China, can look at each other in the eye and say, all right, weapons down, so to speak.

Seek to 29:08

You're bringing up an excellent example, okay? The fertilizer is a perfect example. You know what happens when you try to buy fertilizer? You have to show your ID. There is a form of KYC that happens. So the real thing is, I think that when you don't implement KYC on your own, and yet belly ache about having somebody impose guardrails that then you can shape, I think you're being very sneaky. It's tricky. You shouldn't be saying that kind of stuff. Anthropic could implement KYC tomorrow, but it does not. It could leave all of these models open. Friedberg should be able to go to Anthropic and say, I'm David Friedberg. Here's what I do. Here's a security bond I'm willing to post. Here's the names and addresses of all my employees. Give me Fable 5 and don't nerf me. He can't do that. Is that a technical decision or a legal decision? It's a technical decision by Anthropic.

Seek to 28:17

Can I just respond to your comment about Dario? I think because I've heard this from a number of people that I really do respect on their concerns about what models enable. You know, when we discovered how the atom could be split, you could make nuclear energy and have effectively unlimited cheap energy for the world. You could also make an atomic bomb. If you think about what the models are- We did both. We did both. That's right. There was a lot of scientists, altruists who were very concerned about the progress on the atomic bomb and fought back against it, who were actually active in the Manhattan Project and post the Manhattan Project, expressed their opinions very soundly, very loudly. I think that's the moment we're in right now, that there is a weaponization potential of these tools. I would argue that there's three kinds of weapons. There's cyber weapons, there's physical weapons and there's bioweapons. We can sit here and diagnose how these tools can be used to manifest advantages for creating better physical weapons, for creating novel cyber weapons and creating novel bioweapons, but the truth is that the capabilities that allow that weaponization are the same capabilities that I'm describing that can be used to cure cancer, to make more food, that can be used to make software tools that create extraordinary leverage for people, that increase their income, that give everyone the ability to be an entrepreneur and make millions of dollars and live a good life. The same tools are hand in hand. And fundamentally, I don't think it's about restricting access to the tools, which is unfortunately how it is being manifest. But the restrictions in any regulation, any observation should be organized around the manifestation of the tools in creating weapons and weaponization of the tools.

Seek to 23:43

I think it's the output that needs to be adjudicated in some manner. We already have product liability laws. We already have laws that make it illegal to design weapons. We already have laws against cyber espionage and cyber attacks and hacking. We have laws against creating bioweapons. I think the enforcement of those laws, the mechanism by which there can be tracking an early estimation of those uses of the technology. I'm not trying to be naïve here. I recognize there have to be guardrails and there have to be stage gates put into these systems. But limiting the systems themselves is denying us both the economic opportunity, the job creation opportunity, and also the world-changing opportunity that these tools can enable. So I think that we're going about it the wrong way by trying to create these gates all the way up front on the technology being available. Imagine if we did this with computers. By the way, they tried to do this with the Internet, remember?

Seek to 25:53

But I'm fine with them making that decision because I'm a free market guy. So I'm fine with them doing it. But you know what it means? I'm not going to be a customer.

Seek to 29:05

We have one, we have self-regulation. Also, we have the courts. And if an AI model company behaves irresponsibly, they know that there are ways that people who have been harmed can seek recourse. And so we already have a system that encourages responsible behavior on the part of the model makers.

Seek to 31:04

That's a great point because OpenAI is being sued right now by a kid who killed themselves after talking to OpenAI's model. So you're correct in that. Yes. After the fact.

Seek to 31:27

And we will see, we'll see, we'll see more of that. I just, you know, to me, once you give something, give a power to the government, it's almost never taken back. It needs to grow. And it's kind of a one-way, a one-way path.

Seek to 31:36