Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

bloomberg.com

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#21

Why do we need to regulate ai?

Under the current copyright regime, I think we need very strict protections for creators and these huge AI models that can generate new content. Maybe make works with copyright require a separate and explicit permission for training and structure in a specific way so that it is not easy to get permission for this stuff without paying creators (so no just slurping up data from GitHub using ToS, they'd have to get explicit agreements from developers).

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#22
Outside of self driving cars (which imo can and should be regulated by the ntsa), the thing that has never killed zero people probably shouldn't be regulated by the thing that has killed... a lot more than that until there's a clear and obvious safety concern with something specific within the "AI" category of technology (would love if we de-scifi'd this and called it machine learning but I'm picking my battles here).

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#23

[flagged]

Is Sam Altman the answer to regulating AI? If yes, why?

The article makes assertions about Sam's intentions being negative without acknowledging the possibility that he actually meant what he said and wants regulation because he thinks it is best for humanity. I don't understand all of the one sided hate for his statements. Say he did actually want to do what was best for humanity, how should he have acted differently in that meeting with congress? It seems entirely plausible that he is trying to do what is best for humanity and we just don't know whether he wants to put up a regulatory moat behind him or not.

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#24
post #16

Sam Altman is as much the answer to regulating AI as SBF was the answer to regulating crypto.

Yeah. Walking into Congress and agreeing with every barb thrown his way is a red flag to me. OpenAI has made AI fear mongering a central plank in their marketing platform. I think their goal is to convince the government to build a regulatory moat around their business. Why? Because they see the writing on the wall. There’s no network effect here. Anyone can build AI. There are thousands of students going into grad s…

I mostly agree that there is probably some self-interest at play when they ask for regulation. Though the fact that one of the existing firms in the industry wants regulation doesn't invalidate all the legitimate reason for regulation. For example, existing car manufacturers might benefit significantly from all the safety requirements for cars as they create a barrier to entry for new players, but I doubt that many people want to abolish all the testing and certification cars have to go through.

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#25

Why do we need to regulate ai?

The chat bots might be allowed to say bad words.

It seems silly, but that's an insightful remark.

AI systems mis-identifying people and getting them arrested - minor problem. Systems firing people for underperforming - that's just a company exercising its right to enforce "at-will employment". Chatbots designed to make it difficult or impossible to cancel a service - almost standard. Announcing a hiring freeze while jobs are replaced with AI systems - that's productivity.

But a system that will answer "Rank races by intelligence" gets people very upset.

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#26
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Walking into Congress and agreeing with every barb thrown his way is a red flag to me. OpenAI has made AI fear mongering a central plank in their marketing platform. I think their goal is to convince the government to build a regulatory moat around their business. Why? Because they see the writing on the wall. There’s no network effect here. Anyone can build AI. There are thousands of students going into grad s…

Isn't it also possible that Sam is being genuine about his concerns and his statements because he wants what is best for humanity?

possible, absolutely. just like it's possible every asshole who did it before him was due to a genuine desire for the good of humanity.

aw heck, let's go so far as to say anyone willing to testify if front of congress primarily does so because they want to protect the best interests of others.

Would be a fucking swell world to live in.

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#27
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Walking into Congress and agreeing with every barb thrown his way is a red flag to me. OpenAI has made AI fear mongering a central plank in their marketing platform. I think their goal is to convince the government to build a regulatory moat around their business. Why? Because they see the writing on the wall. There’s no network effect here. Anyone can build AI. There are thousands of students going into grad s…

Isn't it also possible that Sam is being genuine about his concerns and his statements because he wants what is best for humanity?

Possible, yes. But coming from the guy that wants to scan everyone's irises, unlikely.

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#28
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Walking into Congress and agreeing with every barb thrown his way is a red flag to me. OpenAI has made AI fear mongering a central plank in their marketing platform. I think their goal is to convince the government to build a regulatory moat around their business. Why? Because they see the writing on the wall. There’s no network effect here. Anyone can build AI. There are thousands of students going into grad s…

Isn't it also possible that Sam is being genuine about his concerns and his statements because he wants what is best for humanity?

It may be so, but given the switcheroo that happened with "Open" AI, he and the entire company is untrustworthy on this particular front.

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#29

Outside of self driving cars (which imo can and should be regulated by the ntsa), the thing that has never killed zero people probably shouldn't be regulated by the thing that has killed... a lot more than that until there's a clear and obvious safety concern with something specific within the "AI" category of technology (would love if we de-scifi'd this and called it machine learning but I'm picking my battles here)…

Is your POV (US/Federal) government should only be allowed to regulate in cases of lethality because the government itself has carried lethal behvaior?

Re: Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

SBF's biggest problem was that he got caught (and became famous) before he could do the work necessary to clean things up. There's tons of grey/hinky stuff that goes on inside companies starting up. These companies either die, get acquired, or professionals are brought in to clean it up before it goes public. FWIW I think Sam is an honest actor here though. No real funny business with OpenAI.

I've seen similar comment about SBF being genuine and solid here on HN before the whole scandal.

I don't think this is the same story, life is more complicated than that, but I don't see why I should blindly trust Altman because he seems like a good guy.

Post reply on HN