101–110 of 232 posts
I scrolled this entire thread and still can’t figure out what effect this might have on the ai industry. Everyone’s takes feel excessively either politically motivated knee jerk or nihilistic.
The effect is it creates a bunch of fake jobs that they can trade for favors while gumming up AI progress.
Does that prevent them from using any of my prompts (or derivations of it) for anything else than answering me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had a requirement to either do something I didn't want to do or pay a nickel, I'd just fake doing what needed to be done and wait for the regulatory body to fine me 28 years later after I exhausted my appeal chain. Luckily, inflation turned the nickel into a penny, now defunct, and I rely on the ability to pay debts in legal currency to use another 39 years of appeals.
28yrs for an appeals chain is a bit longer than most realities I'm aware of. More like a dozen years at the top end would be more in line with what I've seen out there. In general though, it's easier to just comply, even for the companies. It helps with PR and employee retention, etc. They may fudge the reports a bit, even on purpose, but all groups of people do this to some degree. The question is, when does fudging…
This is to allow companies to make entirely fictitious statements that they will state satisfies their interpretation. The lack of fines will suggest compliance. Proving the statement is fiction isn't ever going to happen anyway.
But it's also such low fine, that will eat inflation for those 12 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Artificial intelligence model” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this definition covers basically all automation of any kind. Like, a dumb lawnmower responds to the…
If a single design of automated lawnmower cut off 50 toes it should absolutely be investigated. Perhaps the result of that investigation is there is no fault on the machine, but you don't know that until you've looked.
In my friend's case, he was mowing on a hill, braced to pull the lawnmower back, and jerked it back onto his foot.
Edit: Looked it up, the number of injuries per year for lawn mowers is around 6k [1]
[1] https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/303776...
This is censorship with extra steps. Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk" and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities." That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies to build systems that restrict those outputs. The Supreme Court alr…
LLMs don't have rights. LLMs are tools, and the state can regulate tools. Humans acting on behalf of these companies can still, if they felt the bizarre desire to, publish assembly instructions for bioweapons on the company blog.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and why the penalty for noncompliance is only $10,000. Think they were off by an order of magnitude for this fine. The PR for reporting anything bad on AI is probably worth more than the fine for non-compliance. 100k would at least start to dent the bumper.
Hint: It's low because the tech companies are already in agreement with the legislation. This is a huge win compared to a blanket regulatory push.
What a thumbass idea.
This is censorship with extra steps. Look at what the bill actually requires. Companies have to publish frameworks showing how they "mitigate catastrophic risk" and implement "safety protocols" for "dangerous capabilities." That sounds reasonable until you realize the government is now defining what counts as dangerous and requiring private companies to build systems that restrict those outputs. The Supreme Court alr…
It is already illegal under 18 USC § 842 to provide bomb-making instructions or similar with the knowledge or intent that said instructions will be used to commit a crime. The intent is to balance free speech with the probability of actual harm. AIs do not have freedom of speech, and even if they did, it is entirely within the bounds of the Constitution to mitigate this freedom as we already do for humans. Government…
SB 53 is different. It requires companies to implement filtering systems before anyone commits a crime or demonstrates criminal intent. Companies must assess whether their models can "provide expert-level assistance" in creating weapons or "engage in conduct that would constitute a crime," then implement controls to prevent those outputs. That's not punishing distribution to someone you know will commit a crime. It's mandating prior restraint based on what the government defines as potentially dangerous.
Brandenburg already handles this. If someone uses an AI to help commit a crime, prosecute them. If a company knowingly provides a service to facilitate imminent lawless action, that's already illegal. We don't need a regulatory framework that treats the capability itself as the threat.
The "AIs don't have speech rights" argument misses the point. The First Amendment question isn't about the AI's rights. It's about the government compelling companies (or anyone) to restrict information based on content. When the state mandates that companies must identify and filter certain types of information because the government deemed them "dangerous capabilities," that's a speech restriction on the companies.
And yes, companies control their outputs now. The problem is SB 53 removes that discretion by legally requiring them to "mitigate" government-defined risks. That's compelled filtering. The government is forcing companies to build censorship infrastructure instead of letting them make editorial choices.
The real issue is precedent. Today it's bioweapons and cyberattacks. But once we establish that government can mandate "safety" assessments and require mitigation of "dangerous capabilities," that framework applies to whatever gets defined as dangerous tomorrow.
Copied from the end of the page: What the law does: SB 53 establishes new requirements for frontier AI developers creating stronger: Transparency: Requires large frontier developers to publicly publish a framework on its website describing how the company has incorporated national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework. Innovation: Establishes a new co…
So the significant regulatory hurdle for companies that this SB introduces is... "You have to write a doc." Please tell me there's actual meat here.
Compliance achieved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radio stations get to use anyone’s music but they still need to pay to play that music. Requiring payment to use your product isn’t rent seeking anymore than requiring a hobo to leave your house is. AI companies trying to leverage their power and lobby governments to stiff paying people and thus increase profits is rent seeking behavior. They aren’t creating wealth by non payment, just trying to enrich themselves.
Hmm? Creating new models is clearly adding wealth to the world, and it wouldn't terribly surprise me if a lot of source material (e.g. scanned books or recorded music) is older than the people working on models. The history of copyright is basically a perfect example of rent-seeking.
That’s the basic flaw in any argument around necessity.