851–860 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong, except in so far as that's parochial. A government-controlled… never mind artificial god, a government-controlled story teller can be devastating. I don't buy Musk's claim ChatGPT is "woke" (or even that the term is coherent enough to be tested), but I can say that each government requiring AI to locally adhere to national mythology, will create self-reinforcing cognitive blind spots, because that a…
[flagged]
See 2:09:40 in https://www.youtube.com/live/iqVxOZuqiSg
This is the message I shared with my senator (edited to remove information which could identify me). I hope others will send similar messages. Dear Senator [X], I am an engineer working for [major employer in the state]. I am extremely concerned about the message that Sam Altman is sharing with the Judiciary committee today. Altman wants to create regulatory roadblocks to developing AI. My company produces AI-enabled…
It is a calculated strategy designed to keep others out and reap monopoly profits (or as close to them as possible) by virtue of preferred access to elected leaders.
"Open"AI wants to tax the entire AI economy and they are happy to burn every innovative thing around them in order to make it happen (because those 'innovative things' aren't 'compliant' with the rules they lobbied for of course, therefore "Open"AI are one of the only / preferred games in town).
This should be fought against tooth and nail.
AI is already regulated under the fair use doctrine and we should encourage the Cambrian explosion of AI innovation, which is caustic to "Open"AI, to continue unabated.
America, and western democracies to a lesser extent, have an advantage currently - the proposals by "Open"AI are designed to and will ensure we regress to the mean that is China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You lost me at "While AI regulation is important" - nope, congress does not need to regulate AI.
If AI is to be a consumer good—which it already is—it needs to be regulated, at the very least to ensure equal quality to a diverse set of customers and other users. Unregulated there is high risk of people being affected by e.g. employers and landlords using AI to discriminate. Or you being sold an AI solution which isn’t as advertised. If AI will be used by public institutions, especially law enforcement, we need i…
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/maximise-profits-facial-...
AI is being used by law enforcement and public institutions. In fact so much that perhaps this is a good link:
https://www.monster.com/jobs/search?q=artificial+intelligenc...
In both cases it's too late to do anything about it. AI is "loose". Oh and I don't know if you noticed, governments have collectively decided law doesn't apply to them, only to their citizens, and only in a negative way. For instance, just about every country has laws on the books guaranteeing timely emergency care at hospitals, with timely defined as within 1 or 2 hours.
Waiting times are 8-10 hours (going up to days) and this is the normal situation now, it's not a New Year's eve or even Friday evening thing anymore. You have the "right" to less waiting time, which can only mean the government (the worst hospitals are public ones) should be forced to fix this, spending whatever it needs to to fix it. And it can be fixed, I mean at this point you'd have to give physicians and nurses a 50% rise and double the number employed and 10x the number in training.
Government is just outright not doing this, and if one thing's guaranteed, this will keep getting worse, a direct violation of your rights in most states, for the next 10 years minimum, but probably longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, if next month you developed a model that could produce extremely high quality video clips from text and reference images, you did a small, gated beta release with no PR, and one of your beta testers immediately uses it to make e.g. highly realistic revenge porn. You make a great point here. This is why we need as much open source and as much wide adoption as possible. Wide adoption = public education i…
I think the stance that regulation slows innovation and adoption, and that unregulated adoption yields public understanding is exceedingly naive, especially for technically sophisticated products. Imagine if, e.g. drugs testing and manufacture was subject to no regulations. As a consumer, if you can be aware that some chemicals are very powerful and useful, but you can't be sure that any specific product has the chem…
I met some biohackers at defcon that took this perspective, a sort of "open source but for medicine" ideology. I see the dangers of a massively uneducated population trying to 3d print aspirin poisoning themselves, but they already do that with horse paste so I'm not sure it's a new issue.
Assume the CIA motivation of American primacy: OK fair enough, but is the way to achieve that really through the creation of a few small super monopolies?
What’s wrong with a bit of 1980s style unregulated capitalism when it comes to AI right now? Can not we all theoretically have a chance to build companies, train models build great new products, get rich?
Why months after this tech was first released to the public are we seemingly being denied that within the United States via regulation?
How can Sam Altman claim to be from a company that create AI for all? It’s like the thinnest ministry of truth cover story ever. “Oh yeah, we’re all about AI ethics AI openness, creating AI for all” and then we just gonna create a super monopoly with regulatory capture—only riches for me, but not for thee.
I mean, this is a new fucking gold rush right now, right? so I guess this is sort of like prospecting licenses, but it seems worse than that.