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

Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 154 posts

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#41

Post by ncallaway »

quotemstr wrote: post #19
RankingMember wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100%. I appreciate the hacker mindset, but when things approach society-altering scale, "just because you can doesn't mean you should" should be the mantra, not "move fast and break things".

And who decides when that "should" condition is met? Over the past few years, I've seen far too many activists react to algorithms that notice true but politically inconvenient things by trying to shut down the algorithms, to pull wool over our eyes, to continue the illusion that things are other than what they are. Why should we keep doing that? I have zero faith in the ability of activists or states to decide when…

> to algorithms that notice true but politically inconvenient

I don't know that I agree that there exists an algorithm that can determine what is factually true, so I'm not sure I agree that an algorithm can "notice a true thing".

Do you have an example of when an algorithm noticed something that was objectively true but was shut down? Can you explain how the algorithm took notice of the fact that was objectively true (in such a way that all parties agree with the truth of the fact)?

I can't think of a single example of an algorithm determining or taking notice of an objective fact that was rejected in this way. But there are lots of controversies I'm not aware of, so it could have slipped by me.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#43

Post by Jiejeing »

quotemstr wrote: post #11

Luddites. If you look at the course of history, every attempt to slow the adoption of new technology has been a disaster for human welfare. This policy move is just like trying to ban the telephone or the printing press.

It is humorous that you bring up Luddites, as they were one of the first 19th century movements (among many) that sought to fight the mechanization and industrialization of their labor, and were repressed by military might because god forbid someone sabotage a machine.

Many "innovations" were bought at the beginning not for real use, but in order to threaten the working class with this new tool, so that they do not ask for more job stability, higher wages, or reduced working hours (e.g. grain harvesters, industrial looms, etc).

And the new technology when used often resulted in a net negative in terms of life expectancy, environmental pollution, danger or physical load, which was then disregarded as a necessary sacrifice that the poor need to make in the inexorable march of progress.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#45

Post by capableweb »

rndude wrote: post #42

The title should read "Europe seeks to limit use of AI because they can't build any AI system themself" The state of AI in Europe is a sad joke and we already think about regulation.

> The state of AI in Europe is a sad joke and we already think about regulation.

Yeah, fuck people who want to think about and limit the consequences of what they are working on.

Like who would ever want to draft up laws around nuclear weapons before researching and developing nuclear weapons, that removes all the fun?

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#46

Post by ncallaway »

quotemstr wrote: post #14
mc32 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, what good is technology for the sake of technology if it’s detrimental to people’s well-being? Technology to conquer ills, yes. Technology which alienates people, no. It’s kind of like the goths vs the romans or the inuit vs europeans. Is the value of progress more than the value of self-worth?

How do you know that these technologies are detrimental to people's well-being? Some activists claim that things like facial recognition, ad targeting, and personalized risk scoring are detrimental, but are these activists correct? I don't think so! All these technologies give us new capabilities and allow us to more precisely understand and shape the world. Every single time humanity has gained new abilities --- fro…

> There is no such thing as a net-negative technology

Explain to me the benefits of a gatling gun, other than being a more effective tool for killing humans. Is all of humanity really better off for all those that have been killed by this invention?

That's a lot of deaths that start out as a massive negative balance against. Tell me the overall improvement to society that the gatling gun brought us that was "worth" those deaths.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#48

Post by modeless »

goatcode wrote: post #40

>The use of AI in the military is exempt, as are systems used by authorities in order to safeguard public security. Of course.

The problem with government regulation of AI is that the biggest threat is government use of AI. Rules for thee but not for me!

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#49

Post by goatcode »

modeless wrote: post #48
goatcode wrote: post #40

>The use of AI in the military is exempt, as are systems used by authorities in order to safeguard public security. Of course.

The problem with government regulation of AI is that the biggest threat is government use of AI. Rules for thee but not for me!

Any governing body seems to leave a lot of room for "except for pigs" when they write down their rules. The bigger the body, the more potential pigs there are.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#50

Post by systemvoltage »

goatcode wrote: post #40

>The use of AI in the military is exempt, as are systems used by authorities in order to safeguard public security. Of course.

The AI race is in an unstable equilibrium. Slight perturbations of the initial conditions (slight advantage) will have consequential, exponential and final implications years later.
Post reply on HN