161–170 of 232 posts
Reading the text it feels like a giveaway to an "AI safety" industry who will be paid well to certify compliance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're conflating individual criminal liability with mandated prior restraint. If someone tells a chatbot they're going to commit a crime and the AI helps them, prosecute under existing law. But the company doesn't have knowledge of every individual interaction. That's not how the knowledge requirement works. You can't bootstrap individual criminal use into "the company should have known someone might use this for cr…
> You can't bootstrap individual criminal use into "the company should have known someone might use this for crimes, therefore they must filter everything." Lucky for me, I am not. The company already has knowledge of each and every prompt and response, because I have read the EULAs of every tool I use. But that's beside the point. Prior restraint is only unconstitutional if it is restraining protected speech. Thus f…
Prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional. The burden is on the government to justify it under strict scrutiny. You don't have to prove something is protected speech first. The government has to prove it's unprotected and that prior restraint is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means. SB 53 fails that test.
The FCC comparison doesn't help you. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, the Supreme Court allowed broadcast regulation only because of spectrum scarcity, the physical limitation that there aren't enough radio frequencies for everyone. AI doesn't use a scarce public resource. There's no equivalent justification for content regulation. The FCC hasn't even enforced the fairness doctrine since 1987.
The real issue is you're trying to carve out AI as a special category with weaker First Amendment protection. That's exactly what I'm arguing against. The government doesn't get to create new exceptions to prior restraint doctrine just because the technology is new. If AI produces unprotected speech, prosecute it after the fact under existing law. You don't build mandatory filtering infrastructure and hand the government the power to define what's "dangerous."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d rather pay real human authors and artists for their creativity than openAI. As it is, I would never pay for an AI written textbook. And yet who will write the textbooks of tomorrow?
News flash: You won't have any idea whether the textbook is AI-authored or not.
AI will have effectively frozen human progress in a snapshot of time because nothing created after LLMs became widely available will be trustworthy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The reason I bring up the definition is that "AI" is defined so loose as to include dumb lawn mowers. 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...
What real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance, how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by LLMs without permission from or payment to me?
> Government Operations Agency to develop a framework for creating a public computing cluster. The meat of the bill is that some government contractors are about to get very rich. And, if history reflects the future, some portion will be no-bid, to make sure the money goes to exactly who he wants it to go to: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article250348451.h...
What real-world problem does any of this solve? For instance, how does it protect my IP from being vacuumed up and used by LLMs without permission from or payment to me?
My first impression of your post was “it’s not perfect why do it?” - I hope I’m wrong. Hard to tell on the interwebs so apologies if that wasn’t the intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a bubble implies that the industry was overvalued compared to its long term fundamental value. Having a dip and then a return to growth and exceeding the previous peak size isn't exactly a bubble. The internet and tech sector has grown to dominate the global economy. What happened was more of a cyclical correction, or a dip and rebound.
>Having a dip and then a return to growth and exceeding the previous peak size isn't exactly a bubble. That's exactly what a bubble is. You blow too fast and you get nothing but soap. You blow slow, controlled breaths balancing speed and accuracy and you get a big, sustainable bubble. No one's saying you can't blow a new bubble, just that this current one isn't long for this world. It's just that the way investments…
You can have a crash without this having happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Having a dip and then a return to growth and exceeding the previous peak size isn't exactly a bubble. That's exactly what a bubble is. You blow too fast and you get nothing but soap. You blow slow, controlled breaths balancing speed and accuracy and you get a big, sustainable bubble. No one's saying you can't blow a new bubble, just that this current one isn't long for this world. It's just that the way investments…
A bubble's when values inflate well beyond intrinsic valuations. You can have a crash without this having happened.
If you deflate over time slowly (or simply slow growth expectations) you can prevent a pop. That doesn't tend to be what historically happens, though.
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.
Some things are inherently dangerous.
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…
You cannot teach them with the /intent/ that they'll use a bomb to commit a specific crime.
It's an enhancement.