51–60 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is called regulatory capture, which could definitely be happening here.
Politics are depressing :/ Has the tech industry always been so cutthroat, or is this a new trend? Maybe I just didn't hear about tech companies lobbying for power in the past?
This entire article feels like it was written by ChatGPT. For instance, it continuously makes vague claims about the value of open source without even citing the original bill.
This is going to become one the the site no-nos. What does this assertion add to the discussion? Is there any argument that serves as refutation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is called regulatory capture, which could definitely be happening here.
Politics are depressing :/ Has the tech industry always been so cutthroat, or is this a new trend? Maybe I just didn't hear about tech companies lobbying for power in the past?
Here's a link[0] with 2023 lobby spends by industry, but there is no "tech" listing specific. There's an entry for "Internet" listed, which I'm guessing is what you mean by "tech". Another chart[1] breaks down that entry.
If you want to know when each company started to spend money, you could research their public filings.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-indu...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1035987/us-leading-inter...
I’m worried that regulations like these will create a lock in effect that benefits existing leading AI companies and makes it impossible for new entrants
Some nuggets...
---
So we are only allowed to train what they allow us:
This bill would require that a developer, before initiating training of a nonderivative covered model, comply with various requirements, including implementing the capability to promptly enact a full shutdown of the covered model until that covered model is the subject of a limited duty exemption.
---
Of course it comes with a new department with powers to impose fees:
This bill would also create the Frontier Model Division within the Department of Technology and would require the division to, among other things, review annual certification reports from developers received pursuant to these provisions and publicly release summarized findings based on those reports. The bill would authorize the division to assess related fees and would require deposit of the fees into the Frontier Model Division Programs Fund, which the bill would create.
---
And, obviously, we must pay consultants:
This bill would also require the Department of Technology to commission consultants, as prescribed, to create a public cloud computing cluster, to be known as CalCompute, with the primary focus of conducting research into the safe and secure deployment of large-scale artificial intelligence models and fostering equitable innovation that includes, among other things, a fully owned and hosted cloud platform.
Since it’s not mentioned in the blog: >On February 7, 2024, Senator Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill 1047 (SB-1047) – known as the Known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act (the Act) – into the California State Legislature. Aiming to regulate the development and use of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models, the Act mandates developers to make certain safety det…
The Scott Wiener Congressional Exploratory Cmte received $8,600 from OpenAI. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/openai/summary?id=D00008425...
You've got a company valued at $80 billion and you can get legislation put forward to kneecap your primary competition for a the price of a 2009 Honda Accord with 150,000 miles on the odometer? What great value for money!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is called regulatory capture, which could definitely be happening here.
Politics are depressing :/ Has the tech industry always been so cutthroat, or is this a new trend? Maybe I just didn't hear about tech companies lobbying for power in the past?
> The creator of a model can not ensure that a model is never used to do something harmful – any more so that the developer of a web browser, calculator, or word processor could. Placing liability on the creators of general purpose tools like these mean that, in practice, such tools can not be created at all, except by big businesses with well funded legal teams. This matches my thoughts on why this is ultimately a b…
Otherwise you also have to complain about the stifling of open source bioagent research, open source nuclear warheads, open source human cloning protocols
Those are also all dual-use technologies that are objectively morally neutral
The politicians are gunning extremely hard for open source AI. It's crazy. "Soros argued that synergy like that between corporate and government AI projects creates a more potent threat than was posed by Cold War–era autocrats, many of whom spurned corporate innovation. “The combination of repressive regimes with IT monopolies endows those regimes with a built-in advantage over open societies,” Soros said. “They pose…
I don’t really understand the long term plan, or maybe I don’t believe lawmakers understand where we are going long-term with this stuff. We’re still in the very early days. Unless the academic community really drops the ball, in 5 or so years they’ll be training models around the quality of the current state of the art on professors’ research clusters (probably not just at R1 universities). I’d be shocked if, in the…
My guess: everything that slows down ai development is good, because it gives society time to adapt.
(I think this plan is flawed, because it is easier to adapt to open research than to closed research)