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

SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

answer.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#121

Post by andy99 »

DalasNoin wrote: post #97
samtho wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Otherwise you also have to complain about the stifling of open source bioagent research, open source nuclear warheads, open source human cloning protocols No, actually you don’t. This is just a slippery slope that suggests that any of these examples are even remotely comparable to AI. There is room for nuance and it’s easy to spot the outlier among bioagent research, nuclear warheads, human cloning, and generative…

Agree that artificial intelligence is an outlier. I think it is the technology with the greatest associated risk of all technologies humans have worked on.

That's because you don't understand it.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#122

Post by sensanaty »

shkkmo wrote: post #9
iptq wrote: post #2

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?

Why would I want to read some AI-generated slop? It's no different to spam, other than techbros being okay shoving it everywhere and anywhere it doesn't belong.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#123

Post by sanxiyn »

echelon wrote: post #112
hollerith wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody has been killed by AI Some of us worry that billions of people will be killed by AI in the future -- possibly without anything that you or the average decision-maker might regard as a warning. (They're likely to be killed all at the same time.) I.e., it is more like a large asteroid slamming into the Earth than a stream of deaths over time such as produced by the deployment in society of the automobile (excep…

> My worry is that billions of people will be killed (probably all at the same time) by AI in the future Science fiction.

How do you know? If we can agree something about AI, it is that we are ignorant about AI.

We were similarly ignorant about recombinant DNA, so Asilomar was very cautious about it. Now we know more, we are less cautious. I still think it was good to be cautious and not to dismiss recombinant DNA concerns as "science fiction".

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#125

Post by spamizbad »

echelon wrote: post #71
sanxiyn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand this law does not mandate you to ensure anything. It requires you to follow best practices (to be determined), report safety incidents, etc. You are not even liable for safety incidents, you just need to report them, although it may be embarrassing. Overall, it seems highly reasonable.

> requires you to follow best practices (to be determined) Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. It's indicative of an over-active immune system; lawmakers with nothing better to do. Pass laws against improper use and go after the malicious users. Don't ban the technology, the research, or even the applications. (Of which there will be abundant good uses. Many of which we've yet…

> Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing.

Of little concern in the US legal system. Might be problematic in the EU perhaps, but in the United States the courts have consistently been tremendously deferential to the interests of small and large businesses vs consumers.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#126

Post by JumpCrisscross »

65a wrote: post #66
drcode wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is meaningless if you don't specify what threshold there should be for harm 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

Laws should be about the outcome, not about processes that may lead to an outcome. It is already illegal in California to produce your own nuclear weapon. Instead of outlawing books, because they allow research into building giant gundam robots, just outlaw giant gundam robots.

> Laws should be about the outcome, not about processes that may lead to an outcome

They have to be about both because outcomes aren’t predictable, and whether something is an intermediate or ultimate outcome isn’t always clear. We have a law requiring indicator use on lane change, not just hitting someone while lane changing, for example.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#127

Post by jokellum »

sanxiyn wrote: post #82
echelon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> requires you to follow best practices (to be determined) Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. It's indicative of an over-active immune system; lawmakers with nothing better to do. Pass laws against improper use and go after the malicious users. Don't ban the technology, the research, or even the applications. (Of which there will be abundant good uses. Many of which we've yet…

That's like saying we should punish when bridge collapses, before that any bridge should be able to be built. You can argue that, but not many will agree.

It's not at all like saying that. The concept of bridges is thousands of years old at this point with well established best practices, and a dense knowledge base on what can go wrong and how much damage can occur if built incorrectly. We aren't at the stage of "bridge innovation" where we don't even know what a bridge collapse looks like. We know very well the cost, threat to lives, even timeline that a poorly built bridge can cause.

I'm not against legislation regulating AI, but it needs to be targeted toward clear problems e.g.: stealing copyrighted material, profiling crime, face recognition, self driving vehicles, automated "targeting" however you want to interpret that.

I want to point out above are some awful uses of AI that are leveraged mostly by closed, proprietary entities

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#128

Post by exe34 »

verdverm wrote: post #101
exe34 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way this could be what gives us AGI that runs in your pocket. If there's an upper limit on what can be used, then human ingenuity will be funnelled towards whatever does fit in. Of course, this is only in the USA. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc will still be free to persue the technology.

See f.2 which essentially says that if you can reach the same capability with fewer calculations, then you are still covered by this bill It essentially creates 2 thresholds 1. number of math operations 2. 2024 benchmark results 100% agreement this will hurt CA and others, especially nefarious, will ignore it

Sounds like Volkswagen's emissions testing - as long as it plays dumb when talking to a senator, it should be fine.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#129

Post by adamc »

ubj wrote: post #34

> 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…

Someone who creates very dangerous items needs to take responsibility for them. Or their production needs to be very heavily regulated. That is just a reality. We don't let companies sell grenades on street corners.

The running away from responsibility is one of the things I like least about big tech.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#130

Post by JumpCrisscross »

michaelt wrote: post #57
RobotToaster wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Scott Wiener Congressional Exploratory Cmte received $8,600 from OpenAI. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/openai/summary?id=D00008425...

It's impressive how affordable politicians are. 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!

> can get legislation put forward

This typically works the other way. You find politicians who support you, due to personal views or electoral idiosyncrasies, and then give them money to boost them.

Post reply on HN