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

61–70 of 154 posts

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#61

Post by 908B64B197 »

keiferski wrote: post #2

Bonus points if they name the overseeing organization the Turing Police. And if Switzerland goes its own way and allows citizenship for AIs. In all seriousness, I’m not sure if these legal restrictions will actually be effective. They are too broad, vague, and will likely just result in technological stagnation.

Am-I the only one that finds is odd how the British government brags about Alan Turing after what they did to him?

The man saved women, men, children, of all races and orientations from an horrible end. I wish the British government had extended the favor to Turing himself.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#62

Post by trutannus »

geraneum wrote: post #56
modeless wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Government (ab)use of AI is is of course a serious threat. But I’d say big corporations abuse of AI is even worse. Assuming we are talking about a democratic state, at least there are some checks and balances on governments whereas people cannot elect a FAANG CEO or go to a ‘.gov’ website to read a transcript of board meetings. Edit: I am by no means advocating for government’s use of AI in any form.

A business can't lock you in a prison cell. I'd argue that the checks and balances at this point are little more than a mirage. Ruling by fiat is becoming more common, accountability less so. Government use of AI is far more menacing to me than a business using it.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#63

Post by avz »

8fGTBjZxBcHq wrote: post #7
keiferski wrote: post #2

Bonus points if they name the overseeing organization the Turing Police. And if Switzerland goes its own way and allows citizenship for AIs. In all seriousness, I’m not sure if these legal restrictions will actually be effective. They are too broad, vague, and will likely just result in technological stagnation.

My perspective is that our technological advancement has well outpaced our ability to adapt to the changes or bring our legal and social tools effectively to bear on them. A decade or two of stagnation would be frustrating for those in the field but probably overall a good thing. Plus I don't think this would affect research at all so not even.

> A decade or two of stagnation would be frustrating for those in the field but probably overall a good thing.

Is a decade or two of a head start given to high-tech totalitarian regimes like China overall a good thing?

> Plus I don't think this would affect research at all so not even.

Limiting use of AI reduces interest of the public and young researchers and engineers, contributes to brain drain and limits availability of large datasets that are an important asset for AI development.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#64

Post by livueta »

ncallaway wrote: post #46
quotemstr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" t…

Lethality of weaponry has a significant impact on how battles are fought, where increasing lethality generally means fewer participants and, counterintuitively, fewer deaths: https://acoup.blog/2021/02/26/fireside-friday-february-26-20... is a decent discussion.

There's obviously some lag (the bloodiness of WWI) but overall yes, in a weird way, the Gatling gun and other weapons like it are part of why you're a lot less likely to die as a draftee today than in the Napoleonic era.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#65

Post by brobdingnagians »

goatcode wrote: post #49
modeless wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your use of "pigs" reminds me of: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#66

Post by mbroncano »

908B64B197 wrote: post #61
keiferski wrote: post #2

Bonus points if they name the overseeing organization the Turing Police. And if Switzerland goes its own way and allows citizenship for AIs. In all seriousness, I’m not sure if these legal restrictions will actually be effective. They are too broad, vague, and will likely just result in technological stagnation.

Am-I the only one that finds is odd how the British government brags about Alan Turing after what they did to him? The man saved women, men, children, of all races and orientations from an horrible end. I wish the British government had extended the favor to Turing himself.

Or to that extent Oscar Wilde and many, many others.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#67

Post by ratsforhorses »

ncallaway wrote: post #46
quotemstr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" t…

The mere threat of its awesome killing power made an adversary think twice. In one of the most bizarre episodes Ms. Keller recounts, on July 17, 1863, during the draft riots, the New York Times (which supported conscription) mounted three Gatling guns on the roof of its headquarters, with the editor in chief at the trigger, and successfully cowed an angry mob without firing a single shot.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#68

Post by visarga »

908B64B197 wrote: post #61
keiferski wrote: post #2

Bonus points if they name the overseeing organization the Turing Police. And if Switzerland goes its own way and allows citizenship for AIs. In all seriousness, I’m not sure if these legal restrictions will actually be effective. They are too broad, vague, and will likely just result in technological stagnation.

Am-I the only one that finds is odd how the British government brags about Alan Turing after what they did to him? The man saved women, men, children, of all races and orientations from an horrible end. I wish the British government had extended the favor to Turing himself.

Nobody's above being cancelled, that's what happens when righteous people set to work. They know best and are willing to educate society by example.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#69

Post by cheschire »

trutannus wrote: post #62
geraneum wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government (ab)use of AI is is of course a serious threat. But I’d say big corporations abuse of AI is even worse. Assuming we are talking about a democratic state, at least there are some checks and balances on governments whereas people cannot elect a FAANG CEO or go to a ‘.gov’ website to read a transcript of board meetings. Edit: I am by no means advocating for government’s use of AI in any form.

A business can't lock you in a prison cell. I'd argue that the checks and balances at this point are little more than a mirage. Ruling by fiat is becoming more common, accountability less so. Government use of AI is far more menacing to me than a business using it.

This is needlessly pedantic, but private prisons are absolutely a thing in America.

Re: Europe seeks to limit use of AI in society

#70

Post by JoshTriplett »

8fGTBjZxBcHq wrote: post #25
quotemstr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Decisions like these need to made slowly and societally and over time. Tension between small-c conservatism that resists change and innovators who push for it before the results can be known is very important! No one person or group needs to or will decide. Definitely not states. "Activists" both in favor of and opposed to changes will be part of it. The last few decades in tech the conservative impulse has been most…

We also don't have to make the same decision for all use of AI.

For example, we should be much more cautious about using AI to decide "who should get pulled over for a traffic stop" or "how long a sentence should someone get after a conviction". Many government uses of AI are deeply concerning and absolutely should move more slowly. And government uses of AI should absolutely be a society-level decision.

For uses of AI that select between people (e.g. hiring mechanisms), even outside of government applications, we already have regulations in that area, regarding discrimination. We don't need anything new there, we just need to make it explicitly clear that using an opaque AI does not absolve you from non-discrimination regulations.

To pick a random example, if you used AI to determine "which service phonecalls should we answer quicker", and the net effect of that AI results in systematically longer/shorter hold times that correlate with a protected class, that's absolutely a problem that should be handled by existing non-discrimination regulations, just as if you had an in-person queue and systematically waved members of one group to the front.

We don't need to be nearly as cautious about AIs doing more innocuous things, where consequences and stakes are much lower, and where a protected class isn't involved. And in particular, non-government uses of AI shouldn't necessarily be society-level decisions. If you don't like how one product or service uses AI, you can use a different one. You don't have that choice when it comes to hiring mechanisms, or interactions with government services or officials.

Reading the article, it sounds like many of the proposals under consideration are consistent with that: they're looking closely at potentially problematic uses of AI, not restricting usage of AI in general.

Post reply on HN