Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

finance.yahoo.com

801–810 of 845 posts

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deal with it as in them accepting there is nothing they can do to stop it. Other countries arent going to follow whatever laws they manage to get in place in the US.

That makes no sense. Even if an individual user is able to use RuGPT to generate infringing content privately, commercial entities would be prohibited from doing so. That is a clear win for "whiney creatives."

No it isnt. Because foreign companies and entities don't need to follow those laws. The whiney creative still losses. All they do is unsure that its their own country that doesnt benefit.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deal with it as in them accepting there is nothing they can do to stop it. Other countries arent going to follow whatever laws they manage to get in place in the US.

So not deal with it so much as just shut up about it?

It's just a case that nothing can be done about it. They can protest about it, but a European, Japanese, Chinese, or Russia company will just continue oblivious that there even was any protest.

Commercial creatives have to accept it is happening and adapt.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a business owner. I love generative AI.

You can both love gen AI, and support an artist's right to decide who, when, where and how their work can be used.

Not when the right they want is impossible to enforce.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So not deal with it so much as just shut up about it?

It's just a case that nothing can be done about it. They can protest about it, but a European, Japanese, Chinese, or Russia company will just continue oblivious that there even was any protest. Commercial creatives have to accept it is happening and adapt.

It used to be rich people got nervous when a big group of precarious workers suddenly became desperate non-workers all at once.

> accept it is happening and adapt.

Are you going to follow this advice if they adapt by simply taking all your shit at gunpoint?

I don't know if I was positioned and planning to personally benefit from the mass destruction of people's livelihoods I'd at least keep a low key about it you know what I mean?. I wouldn't be so gleefully gloating about this in public but hey. There's a lot of cops I'm sure it's fine. It'll probably be fine for you. But it doesn't concern you a tiny bit? Just on the outside chance? Nah nevermind it's fine. Don't worry about it.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, let's wing serving 400 million sandwiches - whatever the risk that the US population dies of salmonella or listeria. Anyways, one of the things about growing up is realizing that there is more to the world than just innovation.

I think one of the things about growing up is accepting personal responsibility and not looking at the government/daddy to protect you from everything. If I sell 400 million skateboards - do we need a regulatory board to approve skateboard design changes? I'm sure millions of people make unregulated sandwiches at home just fine.

This is a nice fantasy, it's just a shame we live in a world full of psychotic C-suites that would do anything and everything they could if it meant the magic line goes up half a percentage point. I guess you could just "take personal responsibility" to not drink polluted water tainted by unfiltered chemical dumps, but I'd much rather we tell companies to get bent when they try pollute rivers and lakes en-masse to save a buck.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a poor definition. The same “subsidization and directive influence” applies to all of Krugman’s Nobel-wining domestic champion, emerging market development leaders, in virtually all ‘successful’ economies. It also applies in the context of badly run, failed and failing economies. Safe to say this factor is only somewhat correlated. Broad assertions are going to be factually wrong.

All snakes have scales, so there is a 100% correlation between being a snake and having scales. That does not imply that fish are snakes. Nor does the presence of scaled fish invalidate the observation that having scales is a defining attribute of snakes (it's just not a sufficient attribute to define snakes).

You’re looking for the logical argument here, not the statistical one. You sampled from snakes and said there is a 100% correlation with being a snake (notwithstanding the counterarg in an adjacent comment about scale-free snakes).

I am noting that the logical argument does not hold in the provided definition. If “some” attributes hold in a definition, you are expanding the definitional set, not reducing it, and thus creating a low-res definition. That is why I said: ‘this is a poor definition.’

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good then that LLMs don't reproduce content.

They produce derivative works, which is also an exclusive right of a copyright holder.

In case there is confusion about the law:

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

If you want to change it, good luck.

Personally, I think that most intellectual works should be able to be derived from others and shared freely after a brief period of time (like 7-14 years).

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has pure rule of law, but at least the USA has it as a goal. The Chinese government has stated explicitly that rule of law isn’t a goal, so it leads to a very different legal system from ours. You have to think much more deeply about the spirit of the law and the flippant intentions of the official class that has all the power (the judicial system isn’t allowed to check official power, or even interpret ambigu…

> The Chinese government has stated explicitly that rule of law isn’t a goal Can you share where you saw this? I am also not aware of anywhere that the US has stated that rule of law is a goal. What you are referring to is more of a norm or tradition. And norms can and do change over time for better or worse. You could argue that rule of law follows from the preamble to the constitution but that doesn’t explicitly me…

All you have to do is read the Chinese constitution to figure it out. Freedom of speech, religion, press, are all there but aren’t meaningful rights since there is no enforcement of those rights. For the rest, here is a document that explains the concept in more detail. https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2021C28/

> The aim is to use the law as a political instrument to make the state more efficient and to reduce the arbitrariness of how the law is applied for the majority of the popu­lation, among other things, with the help of advanced technology. In some areas, for example on procedural issues, Beijing continues to draw inspiration from the West in establishing its Chinese “rule of law”. However, the party-state leadership rejects an independent judiciary and the principle of separation of powers as “erroneous west­ern thought”. Beijing is explicitly interested in propagating China’s conception of law and legal practice internationally, establishing new legal standards and enforcing its interests through the law. Berlin and Brussels should, therefore, pay special attention to the Chinese leadership’s concept of the law. In-depth knowledge on this topic will be imperative in order to grasp the strategic implications of China’s legal policy, to better understand the logic of their actions and respond appropriately.

This is mostly transcribed from those meetings (vs a westerner interpretation). You really need to understand this to get how the legal systems are different, and how party officials are basically given supreme power (only checked by their bosses).

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#809
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be basic, but I found the Wikipedia article to be a good place to start: > An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[35] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but…

It's rather amusing reading the link on dirigisme given the context of its alleged implication. [1] A word which I, and suspect most, have never heard before. --- The term emerged in the post-World War II era to describe the economic policies of France which included substantial state-directed investment, the use of indicative economic planning to supplement the market mechanism and the establishment of state enterpr…

> A word which I, and suspect most, have never heard before.

It's a pretty normal word in British English, tbh.

Maybe it's because we do French at school.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#810
post #119
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, once you centralize, that remains in place for a long time, but the original intent, even if it was genuine, rarely outlives the people who implemented it for long. Generally speaking, every point of centralization is also a point where a lot of power can be acquired with relatively little resources. So regardless of intent, it attracts people who are into power, and over time, they take over. The origina…

> Generally speaking, every point of centralization is also a point where a lot of power can be acquired with relatively little resources This is why (1) shared principles and (2) credible democracy is important, to allow evolution of the centralized power (i.e. government) towards the shared principles, and why its corporate-bribed facsimile or oligarchic authoritarianism don't work.

Credibility of democracy breaks down as you scale upward (which you have to do if you want to centralize). Any representative democracy in which the representative doesn't know all the people they represent is already suspect, but when you get to the point where a single guy supposedly represents hundreds of thousands or even millions, it's kinda obvious that there's no meaningful representation involved. The only way to avoid that is to grow the parliament instead to the point where it ceases to function as a deliberative assembly (and then what's the point of it?).

Or you can have a bunch of smaller assemblies that actually are representative, and then a larger one to which assemblies delegate their own to cooperate. But that's exactly political decentralization - a multi-level federation.

Post reply on HN