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

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#81

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

anon-3988 wrote: post #64
pj_mukh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. I think typical bubble behavior the leaders have set up the whole promise to fail. Everyone is expecting some faux super intelligence to come and find a cancer solution everyone else missed. However, it is just as likely that vanilla current LLM's will create enough of a productivity boost for back office automations in research heavy hospitals to create the space…

I mean they did solve the protein folding problem did they? NOt too far fetch to think it can automate cancer research or problem finding in some way.

> I mean they did solve the protein folding problem did they?

They made huge progress, but I would say that the vast majority of work on this problem was designing the harness for the model. That's a lot of work for each and every domain.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#82

Post by RandomLensman »

anon-3988 wrote: post #64
pj_mukh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. I think typical bubble behavior the leaders have set up the whole promise to fail. Everyone is expecting some faux super intelligence to come and find a cancer solution everyone else missed. However, it is just as likely that vanilla current LLM's will create enough of a productivity boost for back office automations in research heavy hospitals to create the space…

I mean they did solve the protein folding problem did they? NOt too far fetch to think it can automate cancer research or problem finding in some way.

There is already (partial) automation there, for example for finding new drug candidates.

Isn't that so far only static folding?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#83

Post by spwa4 »

RandomLensman wrote: post #65
spwa4 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point, what will happen is this: 1) in things like tax law, registering with city hall, dealings with the DMV, your phone subscription, insurance contract, ... you will find that one of the new fine prints in the contract will be that you're not allowed to use AI to communicate with them. 2) because of how SynthID works (you need the SynthID keys to verify, which are secret. So the only way to find…

1) Would that fine print be binding? 2) What actual law/regulation would that currently be that would be used for such an outright refusal? 3) Would that comply with current regulation?

> 1) Would that fine print be binding?

For government, because it's in law or regulations (ministerial decisions in Europe). For large companies "You agreed to it" (you know, like you agreed to allow Verizon to sell your location data to Palantir)

The other 2 questions I don't understand. My point is that the EU AI directive makes this possible. Makes it possible in ONE direction, while prohibiting the other. AI can be used by government and large companies to spam you and deal with you, and can't be used by you without being 100% up front about that to them (ie. enabling refusal)

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#84

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

trentor wrote: post #58
spwa4 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The only factual point you made is solved on February second. All Model providers have to provide offline tooling to check for invisible watermarking.

Yeah, it's particularly common when the EU does stuff.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#85

Post by toasty228 »

The tech industry cooking up some new way to screw people over for 25 years

The tech execs waking up on a random monday:

> I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over.

No shit Dario, no shit...

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#86

Post by XorNot »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #79
mindwok wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more reasonable than it sounds on the surface. People's jobs, the bubble, etc are societal level problems and well beyond what Anthropic could even hope to influence on their own. Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, not a societal level coordination problem. And one AI has already proved to help with breakthroughs (alphafold). IMO it makes sense for them to shoot for something…

> Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, I just don't buy the AI labs approach to this stuff. Like, unless we can basically simulate the entirety of human biology, I don't really see how LLMs can make progress here. Maths is different as it doesn't require a real-world interface, and programming already (by definition) can be simulated on a computer. Without that, I can't see much (if any) pro…

The real issue is that biology needs actual experiments done in the physical world, which isn't nice and orderly and well behaved and easily loadable onto a 19" rectangular box.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#87

Post by livinglist »

> Overall my view is that AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws).

If only money thirsty capitals didn’t drain the HBM/DRAM/NAND capacity to rush to build out all the data centers so that they can make money off of inference, driving up memory prices like mad man leaving consumers with not only no chance of local inference setup, but also higher price of consumer electronics. Of course it has nothing to do with regulation, more to do with the greed.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#88

Post by RandomLensman »

spwa4 wrote: post #83
RandomLensman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Would that fine print be binding? 2) What actual law/regulation would that currently be that would be used for such an outright refusal? 3) Would that comply with current regulation?

> 1) Would that fine print be binding? For government, because it's in law or regulations (ministerial decisions in Europe). For large companies "You agreed to it" (you know, like you agreed to allow Verizon to sell your location data to Palantir) The other 2 questions I don't understand. My point is that the EU AI directive makes this possible. Makes it possible in ONE direction, while prohibiting the other. AI can…

1) Laws need parliament, no?

Just agreeing to it isn't necessarily enough at least in some countries.

2) What laws and sections specifically makes that possible? Are there examples of that happening?

3) Where can I find that interpretation of article 50(?)? Some other article? (To the extent that things would need to be labelled/watermarked etc.)

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#89

Post by mindwok »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #79
mindwok wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more reasonable than it sounds on the surface. People's jobs, the bubble, etc are societal level problems and well beyond what Anthropic could even hope to influence on their own. Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, not a societal level coordination problem. And one AI has already proved to help with breakthroughs (alphafold). IMO it makes sense for them to shoot for something…

> Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, I just don't buy the AI labs approach to this stuff. Like, unless we can basically simulate the entirety of human biology, I don't really see how LLMs can make progress here. Maths is different as it doesn't require a real-world interface, and programming already (by definition) can be simulated on a computer. Without that, I can't see much (if any) pro…

I'm a noob on this topic, but I think drug discovery is more amenable to this structurally than other problems. Simulating biology is what we were doing with protein folding before Alphafold, and the search space was far too large to find stuff in reasonable timeframes. Alphafold showed that you could take a physical process and make a neural net clever enough to learn just enough structure that it starts finding things we might care about, and still physically accurate, much faster.

Drug discovery is similar AFAIK. The space of possibilities is even larger than protein folding, but it's structurally similar enough that I think AI will help to make progress on the discovery side. Actually getting the drug tested and approved is another matter though for sure.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#90

Post by fredoliveira »

podgorniy wrote: post #66
pu_pe wrote: post #12

> Overall my view is that AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws). Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plu…

Swap that point about AI with "electricity". Everything runs on electricity it's "a technology that tends to concentrate power" (no pun intended). The electricity providers must be too powerful... But somehow electricity providers aren't that powerful. Unless there is no competition in sight... The point "AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power" is not that correct. They need this statement to…

> The point "AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power" is not that correct. They need this statement to be true, otherwise no way to justify the trillion evaluations.

How is it not true?

The biggest companies in the world are, quite obviously (just look at the numbers) going to be AI companies. The most powerful governments in the world are quite clearly going to be those that are close to (or in control of) AI companies. People have a very hard time seeing the second order effects of the control of intelligence - we need to fix that.

Post reply on HN