Uh oh, let's look at the crypto wars and see how that turned out. AI restriction is garbage, I think this is a way for the govt to steal AI tech from private corps. If you refuse to share, how can they access the strength? With crypto, we could easily say restricted to Nbits of keys. With AI, they will make up some rubbish and claim your AI is too strong because you refused to share. If you share and they find it good and think it gives the govt advantage, they will restrict you too. Either way you lose. Long run tho the govt will lose.
The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
61–70 of 100 posts
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#62Only Americans are allowed to do nonlinear function approximation! Fuck off China!
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#63I understand why they want to—even to the point of thinking it would be the right move if only it would actually work—but it won't work. True, software is dual use[0] but it's too slippery. Even things like nuclear weapons designs[1] are getting pretty easy for people to get their hands on. This stuff is just text! How are you going to stop this from spreading? It won't work. Besides, top-shelf AI tech isn't much bet…
I have been growing to accept that almost any technology that is sufficiently powerful is dual-use.
The classic sci fi example is spaceships; a rocket travelling at .2c is a devastating weapon and amazing tool for transit.
But so is AI tech, drones, and other technologies. Crypto can stop hackers and the government. 3D printers can print pen guns as well as plastic tools.
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#64Only Americans are allowed to do nonlinear function approximation! Fuck off China!
Isn't this a bit over-reductionist, such as the people who claim that since all electronic images are represented by 0's and 1's images are just numbers and thus it is silly to ban an illegal image since it is just banning a number?
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#65Regulation is certainly needed but we can be certain it won’t be done properly.
More worrying is the fact that for every “benefit” we receive from AI (self driving cars, open source home automation), there are numerous, globally negative consequences such as discriminatory practices based off biased training data. The Chinese executive mistakened for a jaywalker is a clear example of this.
It feels like this is a train that cannot be stopped that will lead to disasterous circumstances.
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#66Regulation is certainly needed but we can be certain it won’t be done properly. More worrying is the fact that for every “benefit” we receive from AI (self driving cars, open source home automation), there are numerous, globally negative consequences such as discriminatory practices based off biased training data. The Chinese executive mistakened for a jaywalker is a clear example of this. It feels like this is a tra…
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with an algorithm is a good guy with an algorithm.
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#67Regulation is certainly needed but we can be certain it won’t be done properly. More worrying is the fact that for every “benefit” we receive from AI (self driving cars, open source home automation), there are numerous, globally negative consequences such as discriminatory practices based off biased training data. The Chinese executive mistakened for a jaywalker is a clear example of this. It feels like this is a tra…
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with an algorithm is a good guy with an algorithm.
Genuinely wondering, is that sarcasm?
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
They may be short and sweet but I certainly don't feel they're unsubstantive. It seems you're the decider, though, so no problem I'll leave.
> They may be short and sweet but I certainly don't feel they're unsubstantive.
Your comment is visible through enabling flagged/dead comments in settings, and now that I've enabled it—I really don't see the value that this specific comment adds. It broadly derides a class of workers (regardless of whether we actually hold them in high regard) without materially contributing to the conversation.
Commentary of this nature does largely invite simple, emotional agreement in forums with a more instinctive hive mentality (versus the intellectual hive mentality which arises here, a challenge I'm not discounting generally but am subtracting from this equation). What it generally doesn't do is invite informed conversation.
It scratches an itch, and judging from how thoroughly your comment was both modded down and flagged, it looks like it scratches an itch Hackernews doesn't have.
Tl;Dr: dang might be the decider, but his decision was informed by flags, which speaks to the nature of the discourse desired here. The comment was just out of place. It's a better fit for Reddit, but most of us who are active here are specifically here in search of a respite from that.
--
If I were to reply to your comment in search of an actual conversation over this, it would probably be more along the lines of:
> I doubt the politicians themselves came up with this. More likely it was drafted by a think tank, an institution with a vested interest, or a committee constituted of the above. Can't blame the politicians for investigating whether there's a challenge here that'll help their constituents; it's literally their job.
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#69There is no such thing as AI. No professional, legal, or formal definition of such a thing exists. Even self-described AI experts have put forth no definition for AI, let alone agreed on one. Elon Musk was telling people on Joe Rogan that AI was the biggest threat to humanity without even defining what AI is.
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#70Only Americans are allowed to do nonlinear function approximation! Fuck off China!
Isn't this a bit over-reductionist, such as the people who claim that since all electronic images are represented by 0's and 1's images are just numbers and thus it is silly to ban an illegal image since it is just banning a number?
This is interesting... Does algorithm decode, let's say, a JPG image in such a way that would produce child porn out of let's say google logo, makes google logo illegal image? Does conveying an illegal image in other ways, let's say describe in text detailed attributes of such an image, makes such text illegal? Not from a law standpoint, as I am sure it is quite specific, but from a spirit of the law which in theory should represent cultural norms of the country using such laws?