Live data from Hacker News

Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

whitehouse.gov

151–160 of 288 posts

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#151
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The patent system. I know someone will respond detailing why the patent system is pro-business, but it is objectively government regulation that puts restrictions on new technology, so it's proof that regulation of that sort is at least an American tradition if not fully an "American value".

Patents and trademarks are the only ways to create legal monopolies. They are/were intended to reward innovation but despite good intentions are abused.

Not exactly. For example, Major League Baseball has been granted an anti-trust exemption by the US Supreme Court, because they said it was not a business. In some cases in which firms have been found guilty of violating the anti-trust laws, they were fined amounts minuscule in relation to the profits they gained by operating the monopoly. Various governments in the US outsource public services to private monopolies, and the results have sometimes amounted to a serious restraint of trade. The chicanery goes back a long way. For the first decade or so after the passage of the Sherman Act, it was not used against the corporate monopolies that it was written to limit; it was invoked only against labor unions trying to find a way to get a better deal out of the firms operating company stores and company towns etc, etc. Then Teddy Roosevelt, the so-called trust-buster, invoked it under the assumption that he could tell the difference between good and bad monopolies and that he had the power to leave the good monopolies alone. 120 years later, we are in the same sorry situation.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#152
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why then, outside of Norway, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the UAE (All of which are tiny countries, and at least two of them are Petrostates), does the United States have the world's highest median income with a population of over 342 million people? The typical American is insanely wealthy by global standards.

Wealth inequality is worse now than the era of robber barons & gilded age.

In the gilded age people were worth a larger fraction of the entire country’s GDP than today. Rockefeller alone was something like 2% of GDP.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#153
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> we need a hyper-productive world where someone working a few hours a year generates enough wealth to secure a comfortable lifestyle up there with the best of them. This is naive, productivity increases had decoupled from compensation a long time ago. See https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ for example. AI certainly can create wealth, and in fact already did (hey NVDA), but somehow that did not trickle down. I…

I don't know why you think that graph is contradicting me, if wages and productivity aren't linked having people do make-work is even more stupid! They're already doing work that they aren't even being compensated for, fighting to preserve that when the work doesn't need to be done is legitimately crazy. It'd be fighting for the right to do work that isn't being compensated for and isn't useful. One of the rare situations that is even worse than just straight paying people to not do anything. I'm seeing a scenario where we have such high individual productivity that everyone can live a very comfortable life. If in practice the way it is working is a couple of people do all the work and the benefits are divvied up among everyone else then that hardly undermines the vision.

Although if we're talking the optimum way of organising society, y'know, re-linking wages and productivity is a probably a good path. This scheme of not rewarding productive people has seen the US make a transition from growth hub of the world to being out-competed by nominal Communists. They aren't exactly distinguishing themselves with that strategy.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you've heard, but norms don't matter anymore.

Can you guys just read stuff before talking? > The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to create an “AI Litigation Task Force” within 30 days whose "sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws" that clash with the Trump administration's vision for light-touch regulation. The EO isn't about Federal Preemption. Trump's not creating a law to preempt states. So a question about how Federal Preemption is…

It's right in the text of the EO: they intend to argue that the state laws are preempted by existing federal regulations, and they also direct the creation of new regulations to create preemption if necessary, specifically calling on the FCC and FTC to make new federal rules to preempt disfavored state laws. Separately it talks about going to Congress for new laws but mostly this lays out an attempt to do it with executive action as much as possible, both through preemption and by using funding to try to coerce the states.

There's a reasonable argument that nationwide regulation is the more efficient and proper path here but I think it's pretty obvious that the intent is to make toothless "regulation" simply to trigger preemption. You don't have to do much wondering to figure out the level of regulation that David Sacks is looking for.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We regulate medicine, nuclear technology, television, movies, monopolies, energy, financial services, etc. because these things can be harmful if left solely to the market. Americans value honest work, dignity, prosperity and equal opportunity. Innovation is useful in so far as it enables our values - regulation is not counter to Americans interests, it protects them.

> We regulate medicine, nuclear technology, television, movies, monopolies, energy, financial services, etc. Many of those regulations at the federal level, yes?

Sure. And this is not that. This says: before we begin to think about our policy let's make sure to remove any barriers for Mr. Altman and friends so that they don't get sucked down with their Oracle branded boat anchor.

If this had any whiff of actually shedding light on these needed regulations the root OP wouldn't have said what they did. But for now I'm going to head over to Polymarket and see if there are any bets I can place on Trump's kids being appointed to the OpenAI board.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it should be. The system here in the US has produced some great innovations at the cost of great misery among the non-wealthy. At a time when technology promises an easier life, it only seems to benefit the wealthy, while trying to discard everyone else. The light at the end of the tunnel is a 1%-er about to laughingly crush you beneath their wheels.

I don't think this is the strongest argument. Every technological revolution so far has initially benefited the wealthy and taken a generation or two for its effects to lift the masses out of previous levels of poverty, but ultimately each one has. To me the stronger argument about AI is that this revolution won't. And that's because this one is not really about productivity or even about capital investment in things…

I don't know about for all perpetuity. If history has shown, anyone that reaches the pinnacle eventually becomes complacent, technology improves by becoming faster/cheaper/smaller. That just means it is prime to always be susceptible to a new something coming along that stands on the shoulders of what came before without having to pay for it. They start where the current leader fought to achieve.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#157
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and.. Each EO tests the waters a bit more with what the public and other branches will tolerate. As we’ve seen with numerous orders already, Congress and business will comply early because they think it will benefit them. Trump thinks himself a king. He acts like it. He’s attempting to normalize his behavior. He can’t deal with the legislature because it turns out white supremacy isn’t that popular. Who knew?

Apparently popular enough to get him elected. It's not like his supporters were under any pretense who or what they were voting for

I think the GOP, the right, etc. do propaganda very well. And they’re good at spinning scandals into things their voter base wants to hear. Or just burying them in a way that makes it hard for their base to find.

Even the centrist TV networks are still treating Trump like a normal president. News like the NYTimes does the same, while platforming horrible people in their op ed section.

Edit: anec-data - I have an embarrassing number of family members that voted for him. I asked why and the surprising common thing among all of them was they just didn’t know. The felonies, convictions, scandals, the racism and transphobia. They were just surprised. And they’re not very good at thinking critically about much of it.

Instead they’re voting for some nostalgia and the idea that they felt safer and more secure in their country when they were younger.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#158
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently popular enough to get him elected. It's not like his supporters were under any pretense who or what they were voting for

I think the GOP, the right, etc. do propaganda very well. And they’re good at spinning scandals into things their voter base wants to hear. Or just burying them in a way that makes it hard for their base to find. Even the centrist TV networks are still treating Trump like a normal president. News like the NYTimes does the same, while platforming horrible people in their op ed section. Edit: anec-data - I have an emba…

Ross Douthat makes me (figuratively) vomit every time I read his nonsensical garbage.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#159
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EOs also aren't laws, they're instructions on how to execute policy. This administration treats them as the former. Everything they do, however, is petty, cruel and nakedly corrupt while also being marred by a total lack of competence.

I think the Administration is likely to get its toys taken away soon. the Major Questions Doctrine, the end of Chevron deference, the mandate for Article III courts from Jarkesy , have been building towards this for a while. the capstone in this program of weakening the administrative state, overturning Humphrey's Executor when Trump v. Slaughter is decided, will likely revive the Intelligible Principle Doctrine, as…

I don't know where you get the confidence that any of that matters to SCOTUS. They know their role, and they are playing.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#160
post #60
post #34

Is it me or does this seem like naked corruption at its worst? These tech CEOs hang out at the White House and donate to superfluous causes and suddenly the executive is protecting their interests. This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.

[flagged]

[deleted]
Post reply on HN