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

Sam Altman isn’t the answer to regulating artificial intelligence

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

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

#31

Post by [deleted] »

Animats wrote: post #25
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 produc…

[deleted]

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

#32

Post by Grazester »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #21
Grazester wrote: post #14

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 expl…

Ai is just the tool. The copyright issue is now with the derived work produced by ai.

So what is meant by regulate ai is amend existing laws for the age of ai?

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

#33

Post by bostonsre »

igxitxiyxiyc wrote: post #26
bostonsre wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

So.. you're saying that every person that testifies before congress has bad intentions just because they testify before congress?

Say he did want what was best for humanity, how should he have acted differently in front of congress?

To me, from every interview I've heard from him, he doesn't seem like a Zuckerberg.

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

#35

Post by chaxor »

Animats wrote: post #25
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 produc…

`rm -rf /` could be a set of 'bad words' too. Or `shred -uf /dev/sda`

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

#36

Post by mxkopy »

bostonsre wrote: post #20
chongli wrote: 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?

No. In situations like this the best you can hope for is that his incentives aren't at odds with the rest of humanity.

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

#37

Post by paulpan »

chongli wrote: post #16
stephc_int13 wrote: post #3

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…

Arguably OpenAI's moat is the heavily subsidized Microsoft Azure infrastructure to train its models and serve traffic, but your point still stands: government regulation will be a more reliable moat. Especially as the latest LLM models (e.g. LLaMA) are shrinking in size while maintaining performance parity.

I wonder if government will end up enacting any legislation or this scrutiny will blow over until something egregious happens (e.g. Cambridge Analytica). They've shown zero willingness to legislate any consumer data privacy laws so far.

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

#38

Post by _-____-_ »

kyledrake wrote: post #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)…

> Outside of self driving cars

This is what I find so hilariously suspicious about Elon Musk's sudden anxiety about the dangers of AI chatbots. Like, dude, you've spent the better part of two decades making cars that drive themselves and have _already_ killed people with their faulty, ironically oversold "AI." Now all of a sudden someone else's AI, which isn't in the drivers seat of vehicles capable of 100mph+ speeds, and which actually works, is an existential danger to humanity?

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

#39

Post by somesortofthing »

bostonsre wrote: post #20
chongli wrote: 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?

Maybe he sincerely believes the line OpenAI's PR department is pushing, but that's an even better reason not to listen to him.

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

#40

Post by joe_the_user »

kyledrake wrote: post #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)…

I don't think "it hasn't killed people yet" is a very good criteria. There are a lot of plausible dangers that existing and imaginable large-machine-learning could involve.

I can't see how one could do the regulating of AI but I don't think one can limit the worry-area to "clear and obvious" situations.

Post reply on HN