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.
Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
151–160 of 288 posts
Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
#152Earlier 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.
Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
#153Earlier 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…
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
#154Earlier 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…
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
#155Earlier 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?
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
#156Earlier 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…
Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
#157Earlier 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
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
#158Earlier 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…
Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
#159Earlier 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…
Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
#160Is 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]