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

SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

answer.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#161

Post by groby_b »

adamc wrote: post #129
ubj wrote: post #34

> The creator of a model can not ensure that a model is never used to do something harmful – any more so that the developer of a web browser, calculator, or word processor could. Placing liability on the creators of general purpose tools like these mean that, in practice, such tools can not be created at all, except by big businesses with well funded legal teams. This matches my thoughts on why this is ultimately a b…

Someone who creates very dangerous items needs to take responsibility for them. Or their production needs to be very heavily regulated. That is just a reality. We don't let companies sell grenades on street corners. The running away from responsibility is one of the things I like least about big tech.

Given the number of AI deaths (a handful, if we're counting very generously) and gun deaths, or car deaths, or even deaths caused by refusal to vaccinate, I'm fascinated we're choosing autocomplete on steroids as a "very dangerous item".

By all means, let's have responsibility for actual outcomes. That bill is talking about imagined outcomes.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#162

Post by Kim_Bruning »

sanxiyn wrote: post #69
huevosabio wrote: post #56

Unbelievable. I like Scott Wiener for his housing policies but this bill is rampant overstepping from the government. Ironically, it will have the same effect as the NIMBY system he has fought for so long. Some nuggets... --- So we are only allowed to train what they allow us: This bill would require that a developer, before initiating training of a nonderivative covered model, comply with various requirements, inclu…

> including implementing the capability to promptly enact a full shutdown So you need to be able to turn it off. It should be easy? Still it seems to be a good thing to make sure you can turn it off.

How exactly? If it's floss software, everyone has their own copy. If there's a million people who downloaded my model weights, do I get to phone them up and ask politely? ;-)

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#163

Post by michaelmrose »

casebash wrote: post #38

While this article makes some valid points, it basically just ignores the reasons why the law is being passed, that is the potential for open-models to enable bio-attacks, cyberattacks, election manipulation, automated personalised scams, and who knows what else. One might question why that is. Perhaps it's the case that Jeremy has an excellent response to these points which he has somehow neglected to raise. Or perh…

All of those things are extant now without AI. For bioterror the big issue is the massive corpus of data and decreasing cost of equipment not AI.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#164

Post by sgift »

Analemma_ wrote: post #115
sgift wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we know how to build bridges so that they don't collapse. The laws of physics that govern bridge-building are well known. The equivalent for AI systems? Not really.

We don't know how to make safe AI systems, so we should be more cavalier and anything-goes than if we did? Madness.

We don't know if there's even any danger. All statements so far of any danger are somewhere between science-fiction stories and anthropomorphizing AI as some kind of god. The equivalent of "if the bridge breaks down, someone can be hurt", namely a real, quantifiable danger is sorely lacking here.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#165

Post by freedomben »

hollerith wrote: post #157
freedomben wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety and alignment stopped being about preventing AI from killing all humans a while ago. Unless you think that "don't say anything potentially offensive" is in-scope with "don't kill humans and don't take over the world by any means necessary to carry out your prompt."

I agree, but since neither I nor the person I responded to have used either word, what is the relevance?

Very fair point/question, I should have explicitly drawn this link because my comment was quite ambiguous and making (bad) assumptions on shared context.

The relevance is IMHO this bill is largely an ossification at the government level of the safety and alignment philosophy of the big corps. I'm guessing they mainly wrote this bill. It's not the specific words "safey and alignment" that matter, it's the philosophy.

If the bill were only covering AI killing machines I'd (probably) be in agreement with it, but it seems significantly more overreaching than that.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#166

Post by hollerith »

freedomben wrote: post #165
hollerith wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but since neither I nor the person I responded to have used either word, what is the relevance?

Very fair point/question, I should have explicitly drawn this link because my comment was quite ambiguous and making (bad) assumptions on shared context. The relevance is IMHO this bill is largely an ossification at the government level of the safety and alignment philosophy of the big corps. I'm guessing they mainly wrote this bill. It's not the specific words "safey and alignment" that matter, it's the philosophy.…

>my comment was quite ambiguous and . . .

No harm done!

>If the bill were only covering AI killing machines I'd (probably) be in agreement with it, but it seems significantly more overreaching than that.

Just to make sure we are on the same page: my main worry is the projects ("deployments"?) that aren't intended to kill anybody, but one of those project ends up killing billions of people anyways. It probably kills absolutely everyone. That one project might be trying to cure cancer.

The only way of not incurring this risk of extinction (and of mass death) that I know of is to shut down all AI research now, which I'm guessing you would consider "overreaching".

It would be great if there were a way to derive the profound benefits of continuing to do AI research without incurring the extinction risk. If you think you have a way to do that, please let me know. If I agree that your approach is promising, I'll drop everything to make sure you get a high-paying job to develop your approach. There are lots of people who would do that (and lots of high-net-worth people and organizations who would pay you the money).

The Machine Intelligence Research Institute for example has a lot of money that was donated to them by cryptocurrency entrepreneurs that they've been holding on to year after year because they cannot think of any good ways to spend it to reduce extinction risk. They'd be eager to give money to anyone that can convince them that they have an approach with even a 1% probability of success.

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#167

Post by freedomben »

hollerith wrote: post #166
freedomben wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very fair point/question, I should have explicitly drawn this link because my comment was quite ambiguous and making (bad) assumptions on shared context. The relevance is IMHO this bill is largely an ossification at the government level of the safety and alignment philosophy of the big corps. I'm guessing they mainly wrote this bill. It's not the specific words "safey and alignment" that matter, it's the philosophy.…

>my comment was quite ambiguous and . . . No harm done! >If the bill were only covering AI killing machines I'd (probably) be in agreement with it, but it seems significantly more overreaching than that. Just to make sure we are on the same page: my main worry is the projects ("deployments"?) that aren't intended to kill anybody, but one of those project ends up killing billions of people anyways. It probably kills a…

Agreed, and I think this bill probably would help against that, although indirectly by stifling research outside of big corps. You might be winning me over somewhat - stifling research outside of big corps does feel like a pretty low price to pay against the death/destruction of all of humanity...

I guess I need to decide how high I feel the risk is of that, and that I'm less sure of. Appreciate the discussion btw!

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#168

Post by drcode »

wokwokwok wrote: post #147
andy99 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because you don't understand it.

Please don’t. It’s unhelpful to the argument when you do this, and it makes our side look like a bunch of smug self entitled assholes. The reality is that AI is disruptive but we don’t know how disruptive. The parent post is clearly hyperbole; but let’s push back on what is clearly nonsense (ie. AI being more dangerous than nuclear weapons) in a logical manner hm? Understanding AI is not the issue here; the issue so…

nicely put

Re: SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety

#170

Post by jahewson »

sanxiyn wrote: post #37

I disagree on "Focus on Usage, Not Development". > Regulate the use of AI in high-risk areas such as healthcare, criminal justice, and critical infrastructure, where the potential for harm is greatest This suggests, for example, image generation should be unregulated, but potential for harm of deepfake is great. In general, regulation needs to be feasible to implement, and even if it is ideal to regulate use not deve…

That’s like banning cars because some people use them to run over other people.
Post reply on HN