The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

Post by vinceguidry » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #50

I 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…

Post by IshKebab » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

hippich wrote: post #70

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by schoen » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #73

hippich wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The law doesn't really have a problem with such technical hacks. They basically apply common sense - if you distribute a decoder that produces CP from the Google Logo, in legal terms that is no different to distributing CP. I think someone wrote an article about this many years ago called "the colour of bits" or something like that. Basically the idea that you can trick your way out of the law with "it's just a numbe…

Post by petschge » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #56

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is precedence for using restrictions on freedoms to preserve those freedoms, a good example is Germany which very highly values freedom of expression - but has strong laws to defend those freedoms against anti-democratic forces - often referred to as “militant democracy”: it’s a system that’s not paradoxically intolerant of intolerance and so far seems to work well - and it shows that it is possible to draw a l…

>> a good example is Germany which very highly values freedom of expression Can you give references? In my experience of living in Germany, freedom of expression is welcomed as long as it's the right kind of expression .

Post by hahabrew » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

androidgirl wrote: post #63

3pt14159 wrote: post #50

I 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.