On AI regulation and messaging

Post by andy99 » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 10:55 AM UTC

pj_mukh wrote: post #60

kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. 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. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

> 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…

Post by blitzar » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 10:56 AM UTC

xscott wrote: post #101

Any argument about regulation in the US which doesn't mention that China and other countries aren't bound by that regulation should be heavily questioned. Exactly who are you stopping from doing what you don't like?!? Law abiding US citizens won't be able to run them, but you didn't solve anything other than making sure US citizens pay Sam or Dario.

Post by danqqqq » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 10:58 AM UTC

vrganj wrote: post #115

dgellow wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effective altruist and longtermist crowd are into it as a religion. They would happily sacrifice anything human to satisfy their dreams of AI. They care way more about what the AI needs than their what their fellow humans need. We will end up with an AGI having better living and working conditions than humans and the whole AI industry will be clapping

It's an ideological thing. (We just had a conversation about ideology actually, remember?) Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions. For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers mea…

Post by cucumber3732842 » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 10:58 AM UTC

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?

Post by hodgehog11 » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 11:01 AM UTC

orbital-decay wrote: post #106

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…

Current AI is at least a few orders of magnitude less efficient than it could be (as evident from biological spiking networks, e.g. human brain). At some point the labs put too much work and money into transformers and nearly abandoned fundamental research, in both ML and hardware. There are tons of low hanging fruits in efficiency but you'll have to redo everything from scratch so nobody bothers. Which is also prett…