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

Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 146 posts

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#41

Post by zhivota »

Tractor8626 wrote: post #36
homeonthemtn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ further evidence that the problem with democracy isn't democracy, it's that we lack politicians willing to enforce it

Just elect correct politicians doh

I was reading a post about the life of a congressman and it's actually horrifying, on the level of the stores of salarymen in Japan who sacrifice everything for the company.

For me personally being famous is a curse already, pile on top of that the endless fundraising, constant travel, the reality that you're a tiny cog in a huge party machine, and it's a recipe for only attracting the type who has a plan to parlay it into something else - a higher office, a lucrative career in lobbying, outright corruption, etc.

We're not going to get good government without addressing this issue, and we can't because of another issue, ad nauseam.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#42

Post by someothherguyy »

gruez wrote: post #14
adastra22 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacking other companies is illegal as far as I understand.

1. OP specifically mentioned "IP violating antics", not hacking 2. All the hacking legislation (and criminal law in general) require proving intent, which so far as we can tell didn't exist in those cases. At best you can try some "reckless" or "negligent" angle, but that would a novel legal argument and would be risky to prosecute

> All the hacking legislation (and criminal law in general) require proving intent

No, they don't, see laws that make negligent behavior illegal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#43

Post by dearing »

eadler wrote: post #38
dearing wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Michel Foucault enters the chat.

I've read a fair amount of Foucault and while I could guess, what specifically were you thinking of?

Aaron sees safety in sharing, interests see threats in the shared, governence see threats in the sharing.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#44

Post by crote »

gruez wrote: post #9
int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

Okay, and? If anything, the Swartz case was even more direct fair use. There's very little to use JSTOR for which isn't some form of teaching, scholarship, or research!

Clearly the fact that the end-use is (possibly) fair use isn't the only thing that matters.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#45

Post by tzs »

WalterBright wrote: post #27
tzs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those things you list that she has never done help in any meaningful way with understanding antitrust law.

Running a business is a rude awakening for anyone who hasn't done it. Like a ballet critic who has never taken a ballet class. Or a commander who has never been shot at. Or a sailor who has never been at sea. Mayors Katie Wilson and Mandami have never run a business, or worked for a business, and it shows. How can one regulate a business without ever being in the trenches?

> Like a ballet critic who has never taken a ballet class.

In this case though it would be more like an inspector checking that the changes made to modify a building to house a ballet studio follow code has not taken a ballet class.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#46

Post by crote »

gruez wrote: post #14
adastra22 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacking other companies is illegal as far as I understand.

1. OP specifically mentioned "IP violating antics", not hacking 2. All the hacking legislation (and criminal law in general) require proving intent, which so far as we can tell didn't exist in those cases. At best you can try some "reckless" or "negligent" angle, but that would a novel legal argument and would be risky to prosecute

But officer, I didn't mean for my autonomous bank vault busting robot to autonomously bust any bank vaults!

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#47

Post by pjc50 »

afavour wrote: post #4

It won’t happen, but if it did the CEOs have no one but themselves to blame. They’re hyping up their products as being able to destroy the human race then are somehow surprised at the level of anti-AI sentiment out there in the world.

If the nuclear power or life sciences people were putting out press releases saying "our product may kill us all", they'd be dragged into endless Congressional inquiries.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#48

Post by NewJazz »

xnx wrote: post #8

AI is a very competitive market where consumers are getting the product for much less than it costs. This does not seem like an area where the government needs to butt in. Attention would be better spent on long list of other poorly behaved companies: cable ISP monopolies, health insurance companies, home insurance companies, etc.

Why wouldn't the government have incentive to intervene to end a market inefficiency like the one you described?
Post reply on HN