Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

#91

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

hippich wrote: post #85
IshKebab wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To clarify, what if such decoder indeed decodes images, but it happens that if you feed to it specific data set, like google's logo, result will be a child porn picture on the screen? I.e. I am not talking about intentionally making an algorithm to generate such picture, but rather if such result will be a side-effect. What will be CP in this case, google's logo, algorithm, both, none?

What's like to happen? Given how low the probability of such an event is to happen by chance, if the algorithm is traced back to you then the court will find you guilty of creating the algorithm specifically to produce the image. In short, you would be extremely unlucky.

Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

#92

Post by IshKebab »

hippich wrote: post #85
IshKebab wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To clarify, what if such decoder indeed decodes images, but it happens that if you feed to it specific data set, like google's logo, result will be a child porn picture on the screen? I.e. I am not talking about intentionally making an algorithm to generate such picture, but rather if such result will be a side-effect. What will be CP in this case, google's logo, algorithm, both, none?

If it was genuinely by chance, then nobody would believe you and you would still go to jail.

Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

#93

Post by logifail »

petschge wrote: post #77
logifail wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 .

Freedom of expression never means that other are not free to voice their dislike of certain opinions. And while some expression is frowned upon other members of the public you are still within your legal rights to express them. The line you can not cross is incitement of violence, denial of the holocaust, breaking NDAs and so on. Contrary to what many Americans think, Germany is not a oppressive country that censors…

>> Germany [..] has relatively similar free speech rights to the US or other western countries.

At least since NetzDG was passed I'm not sure it's quite that simple.

Google[0] says this about the NetzDG:

"The Network Enforcement Law (NetzDG) requires social networks with more than 2 million registered users in Germany to exercise a local take down of “obviously illegal” content [..] To qualify for a removal under NetzDG, content needs to fall under one of the 22 criminal statutes in the German criminal code to which NetzDG refers."

Politico[1] said this "Titanic, a German satirical magazine, was similarly barred after parodying anti-Muslim comments on its own Twitter account"

[0] https://transparencyreport.google.com/netzdg/youtube [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-hate-speech-netzdg-f...

Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

#94

Post by hippich »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #91
hippich wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, what if such decoder indeed decodes images, but it happens that if you feed to it specific data set, like google's logo, result will be a child porn picture on the screen? I.e. I am not talking about intentionally making an algorithm to generate such picture, but rather if such result will be a side-effect. What will be CP in this case, google's logo, algorithm, both, none?

What's like to happen? Given how low the probability of such an event is to happen by chance, if the algorithm is traced back to you then the court will find you guilty of creating the algorithm specifically to produce the image. In short, you would be extremely unlucky.

Why in this case maker of decoder should go to jail and not creator of google logo? To really make it difficult - let's assume both image and decoder was made at the same time.

Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

#95

Post by tim333 »

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…

The answer is probably the same as for the internet - encourage development in the west, possibly with some DAPRA type subsidies to counter the Chinese subsidising their own.

Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

#96

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

hippich wrote: post #94
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's like to happen? Given how low the probability of such an event is to happen by chance, if the algorithm is traced back to you then the court will find you guilty of creating the algorithm specifically to produce the image. In short, you would be extremely unlucky.

Why in this case maker of decoder should go to jail and not creator of google logo? To really make it difficult - let's assume both image and decoder was made at the same time.

If both were created at the same time, it would be a far different court case. I was assuming the case where the logo clearly predates the algorithm, because in that case you would get enough expert witnesses to testify that the logo was itself clean and thus it is extremely likely the algorithm was developed to specifically produce that image given the input.

If both were provably independently created at the same time, you would probably instead be having an uproar among scientists about the probability for such an event happening. It may still cause issues because the probability of such an event is so small, that the probability of the proof of their being independently created being wrong is the far more likely event.

Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

#97

Post by ryanmonroe »

petschge wrote: post #77
logifail wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 .

Freedom of expression never means that other are not free to voice their dislike of certain opinions. And while some expression is frowned upon other members of the public you are still within your legal rights to express them. The line you can not cross is incitement of violence, denial of the holocaust, breaking NDAs and so on. Contrary to what many Americans think, Germany is not a oppressive country that censors…

> denial of the holocaust

This is a good example of something that is, without a doubt, unconstitutional to ban in the US.

Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

#98

Post by tim333 »

nv-vn wrote: post #28

This is what we get for all the stupid fear-mongering done by people with no understanding of "AI". Pop scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Elon Musk weighing in on a field with 0 overlap with their expertise is treated by the media as some kind of prophecy sent from the heavens. Don't get me wrong, there's scary shit happening with AI that we can legitimately talk about, but we are so far from a world with senti…

Shane Legg "a machine learning researcher and cofounder of DeepMind Technologies" for example seems to think it's something to worry about. I don't think you can all the dismiss all the worrying as people with no expertise. Slightly out of date interview here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/No5JpRCHzBrWA4jmS/q-and-a-wi...

Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI

#99

Post by JoeDaDude »

JoeDaDude wrote: post #84

I appreciate the members of HN for bringing this to our attention, however, the comment period on the proposed rule making ended on December 19th, 2018. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/19/2018-25...

Let me correct myself. Seems the comment period has been extended until January 10th.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=BIS-2018-0024-0042

Post reply on HN