[msuniverse2026]

I'd prefer something akin to the Biological Weapons Treaty which prohibits development, production and transfer. If you think it isn't possible you have to tell me why the bioweapons convention was successful and why it wouldn't be in the case of AI.

[tgma]

> bioweapons convention was successful

Was it successful? The jury is still out.

[xpe]

The point I would make: there are historical examples of international cooperation that work at least for some lengths of time. This is a good thing, a good tool to strive for, albeit difficult to reach.

[Muromec]

Because bioweapons suck, this is why. On the other hand AI sucks too, but it has at least some use

[jrumbut]

There might be a small percentage of people nihilistic enough to want to unleash a truly devastating bioweapon, but basically everyone wants what AI has to offer.

I think that's a key difference as well.

And how would a treaty like that be enforced? Every country has legitimate uses for GPUs, to make a rendering farm or simulations or do anything else involving matrix operations.

All of the technology involved, in more or less the configuration needed to make your own ChatGPT, is dual use.

[smegger001]

because bio-weapons labs take more to run than a workstation pc under your desk with a good graphics card. both in equipment material and training. Its hard to outlaw use of linear algebra and matrix multiplications.

[aaronblohowiak]

The last part of your post doesn’t necessarily follow or support your argument; the corollary is “It’s hard to outlaw rna”.

[txrx0000]

Don't compare general intelligence to bioweapons. A bioweapon cannot defend against or reverse the effects of another bioweapon.

[drdeca]

I don’t see why you think that AGI can reverse the effects of another AGI?