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

Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

aisnakeoil.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 161 posts

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#21

Post by gl-prod »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #7
Enginerrrd wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one, do not want to see this technology locked behind a chosen few corporations, whom have already long since lost my trust and respect. I can almost 100% guarantee, with regulation, you'll see all the same loss of jobs and whatnot, but only the chosen few who are licensed will hold the technology. I'm old enough to have seen the interplay of corporations, the government, and regulatory capture, and see what th…

Just to expand upon this further. I am also deeply frustrated that my application for API access to GPT4 appears to have been a whisper into the void, meanwhile Sam Altman's buddies or people with the Tech-Good-Ol-Boy connections have gotten a multi-month head-start on any commercial applications. That's not a fair and level playing field. Is that really what we want to cement in with regulation??

May I also expand this even further. I'm frustrated that I don't have access to OpenAI. I can't use it to build any applications, and they are putting us behind in this market. Only as customers not as a developers.

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#22

Post by [deleted] »

dwallin wrote: post #20

Any laws should be legislating the downstream effects of AI, not the models themselves. Otherwise we will quickly get to a place where we have a handful of government-sanctioned and white-washed “safe” models responsible for deleterious effects on society, with plausible deniability for the companies abusing them. Legislating around the model is missing the point. There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intell…

[deleted]

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#23

Post by circuit10 »

dwallin wrote: post #20

Any laws should be legislating the downstream effects of AI, not the models themselves. Otherwise we will quickly get to a place where we have a handful of government-sanctioned and white-washed “safe” models responsible for deleterious effects on society, with plausible deniability for the companies abusing them. Legislating around the model is missing the point. There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intell…

> There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intelligence is even plausible

Really? There is a lot of theory behind why this is likely to happen and if you want a real example there is a similar existing scenario we can look at, which is how humans have gone through an exponential runaway explosion in capabilities in the last few hundred years because of being more intelligent than other species and being able to improve our own capabilities through tool use (in the case of AI it can directly improve itself so it would likely be much faster and there would be less of a cap on it as we have the bottleneck of not being able to improve our own intelligence much)

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#24

Post by afpx »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #3
jhptrg wrote: post #2

"If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not a good argument. Military applications are a small subset and are unaffected by copyright issues. Applications can be trained in secrecy. The copyright, plagiarism and unemployment issues are entirely disjoint from the national security issues. If North Korea trains a chat bot using material that is prohibited for training by a special license, so what? Th…

I for one, do not want to see this technology locked behind a chosen few corporations, whom have already long since lost my trust and respect. I can almost 100% guarantee, with regulation, you'll see all the same loss of jobs and whatnot, but only the chosen few who are licensed will hold the technology. I'm old enough to have seen the interplay of corporations, the government, and regulatory capture, and see what th…

Google and others had similar products which were never released. No wonder why.

There are literally billions of people that can be empowered by these tools. Imagine what will result when the tens of thousands of “one in a million” intellects are given access to knowledge that only the richest people have had. Rich incumbents have reason to be worried.

The dangers of tools like these are overblown. It was already possible for smart actors to inflict massive damage (mass poisoning, infrastructure attacks, etc). There are so many ways for a person to cause damage, and you know what? Few people do it. Most Humans stay in their lane and instead choose to create things.

The real thing people in power are worried about is competition. They want their monopoly on power.

I’m really optimistic of legislation like Japan’s that allows training of LLM on copyrighted material. Looking for great things from them. I hope!

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#26

Post by civilitty »

circuit10 wrote: post #23
dwallin wrote: post #20

Any laws should be legislating the downstream effects of AI, not the models themselves. Otherwise we will quickly get to a place where we have a handful of government-sanctioned and white-washed “safe” models responsible for deleterious effects on society, with plausible deniability for the companies abusing them. Legislating around the model is missing the point. There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intell…

> There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intelligence is even plausible Really? There is a lot of theory behind why this is likely to happen and if you want a real example there is a similar existing scenario we can look at, which is how humans have gone through an exponential runaway explosion in capabilities in the last few hundred years because of being more intelligent than other species and being able to…

Yes, really. Scifi fantasies don’t count as evidence and we’ve learned since the Renaissance and scientific revolution that all this Platonic theorizing is just an intellectual circle jerk.

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#27

Post by indymike »

jhptrg wrote: post #2

"If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not a good argument. Military applications are a small subset and are unaffected by copyright issues. Applications can be trained in secrecy. The copyright, plagiarism and unemployment issues are entirely disjoint from the national security issues. If North Korea trains a chat bot using material that is prohibited for training by a special license, so what? Th…

> Military applications are a small subset

Military applications are a tiny subset of evil that can be done with intelligence, artificial or otherwise. So much of the global economy is based on IP, and AI appears to be good at appropriating it and shoveling out near infringements at a breathtaking scale. Ironically, AI can paraphrase a book about patent law in a few minutes... and never really understand a word it wrote. At the moment AI may be an extistential threat to IP based economies... which is certaintly as much of a national security threat as protecting the water supply.

> "If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not a good argument.

This is a good argument if the cow was still in the barn. At this moment, we're all passengers trying to figure out where all of this is going. It's change, and it's easy to be afraid of it. I suspect, though, just like all changes in the past AI could just make life better. Maybe.

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#29

Post by ghaff »

jhptrg wrote: post #2

"If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not a good argument. Military applications are a small subset and are unaffected by copyright issues. Applications can be trained in secrecy. The copyright, plagiarism and unemployment issues are entirely disjoint from the national security issues. If North Korea trains a chat bot using material that is prohibited for training by a special license, so what? Th…

There are a number of largely disjoint issues/questions.

- AI may be literally dangerous technology (i.e. Skynet)

- AI may cause mass unemployment

- AI may not be dangerous but it's a critical technology for national security (We can't afford an AI gap.)

- Generative AI may be violating copyright (which is really just a government policy question)

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#30

Post by z5h »

tomrod wrote: post #13
z5h wrote: post #9

As a species, we need to commit to the belief that a powerful enough AI can prevent/avoid/vanquish any and all zero-sum games between any two entities. Otherwise we commit to adversarial relationships, and plan to use and develop the most powerful technology against each other.

Pareto improvements don't always exist.

I’m suggesting we (AI) can find alternative and preferable “games”.
Post reply on HN