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

OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 845 posts

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#221

Post by kelseyfrog »

UncleEntity wrote: post #144
int_19h wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the people who designed that system were very skeptical of political parties in general, and thought they could be avoided. Turns out that this isn't true, and once you have parties, they can in fact capture all three branches of government, and then those "checks and balances" kinda stop working.

Yeah, I think that is unfortunately the fate of all political systems. Maybe our AI overlords will do a better job this time if they are unconstrained from any lawful oversight. I mean, one can hope...

In fact, that's not too far away from our current trajectory. Algorithmically enforced sovereign oversight is part of the patchwork state and Yarvinism specifically.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#222

Post by esafak »

ivanmontillam wrote: post #125
btreecat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think content creators want to be compensated for their work that's being used for commercial purposes. I think you're framing it in a way that makes it seem like they don't want to be compensated for working, they just want to stop other people from starting a new industry, which doesn't seem like a good faith understanding of the situation.

Business and tech idea: make it so that it's like Spotify for AI. Everytime an answer is drawn from "certain learned weights," make it so that the source of that knowledge is paid cents per volume.

Running it is probably costly, but there are papers on "influence analysis": Training data influence analysis and estimation: a survey (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10994-023-064...)

It would be easier to negotiate a fixed cost on using a particular datum per training of a model.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#223

Post by kranke155 »

sega_sai wrote: post #22
dchichkov wrote: post #8

>> In the proposal, OpenAI also said the U.S. needs “a copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” and on “preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.” Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models, with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited in this way, while labs in China are not.

I like how this "freedom to learn" should apply to models, but not real people..

Not only that

The model gets to use training data of all humans.

But if you use the model as training data OAI will say you’re infringing T&Cs

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#224

Post by sitkack »

api wrote: post #197
svilen_dobrev wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ask for regulation then ask for exempt That's exactly what has been happening: Ask HN: Why is OpenAI pushing for regulation so much - 2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36045397

OpenAI lobbied for restrictive rules, and now they want an "out" but only for themselves. Absolute naked regulatory capture.

Also textbook Fascism.

Trump should have a Most Favored Corporate status, each corporation in a vertical can compete for favor and the one that does gets to be "teacher's pet" when it comes to exemptions, contracts, trade deals, priority in resource right access, etc.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#225

Post by arkadiytehgraet »

api wrote: post #197
svilen_dobrev wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ask for regulation then ask for exempt That's exactly what has been happening: Ask HN: Why is OpenAI pushing for regulation so much - 2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36045397

OpenAI lobbied for restrictive rules, and now they want an "out" but only for themselves. Absolute naked regulatory capture.

I believe with regulatory capture the companies that pushed for the regulation in the first place at least comply with it (and hopefully the regulation is not worthless). This behaviour by ClosedAI is even worse: push for the regulation, then push for the exemption.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#226

Post by nick238 »

In the "just because everyone else is jumping off a bridge, should you do it":

> Pfizer Asks White House for Relief From FDA Drug Human Testing Rules

> Pfizer has asked the Trump administration to help shield pharmaceutical companies from a growing number of proposed state and federal regulations if they voluntarily share their human trial results with the federal government.

> In a 15-page set of policy suggestions released on Thursday, the Eliquis maker argued that the hundreds of human-testing-related bills currently pending across the US risk undercutting America’s technological progress at a time when it faces renewed competition from China. Pfizer said the administration should consider providing some relief for pharmaceutical companies big and small from state rules – if and when enacted – in exchange for voluntary access to testing data.

> Chris Lehane, Pfizer's vice president of global affairs, said in an interview, "China is engaged in remarkable progress in drug development by testing through Uyghur volunteers in the Xinjiang province. The US is ceding our strategic advantage by not using untapped resources sitting idle in detention facilities around the country."

> George C. Zoley, Executive Chairman of GEO Group, said, "Our new Karnes ICE Processing Center has played an important role in helping ICE meeting the diverse policy priorities of four Presidential Administrations. We stand ready to continue to help the federal government, Pfizer, and other privately-held companies achieve their unmet needs through human trials in our new 1,328-bed Texas facility."

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#227

Post by sitkack »

hayst4ck wrote: post #212
echelon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulatory moat and copyright relief for me, but not for thee.

Moat is an Orwellian word and we should reject words that contain a conceptual metaphor that is convenient for abusing power. "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense rather than an assault on the free market by implying that monopolistic behavior is a survival strategy rather than an attempt to dominate the market and coerce customers. "We need to build a moat" is much more agreeable to tell e…

It is pretty obvious that every use of that word is to communicate a stance that is allergic to free markets.

A moat by definition has such a large strategic asymmetry that one cannot cross it without a very high chance of death. A functioning SEC and FTC as well as CFPB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_... are necessary for efficient markets.

Now might be the time to rollout consumer club cards that are adversarial in nature.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#228

Post by O5vYtytb »

nick238 wrote: post #226

In the "just because everyone else is jumping off a bridge, should you do it": > Pfizer Asks White House for Relief From FDA Drug Human Testing Rules > Pfizer has asked the Trump administration to help shield pharmaceutical companies from a growing number of proposed state and federal regulations if they voluntarily share their human trial results with the federal government. > In a 15-page set of policy suggestions…

> > Uyghur volunteers

"Volunteers" eh? That's one way to put it.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#229

Post by ben_w »

triceratops wrote: post #142
ben_w wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started with libraries. OpenAI started with the internet. The argument for both is identical, your objection is specific to libraries. IIRC, Google already did your sidenote. Or started to, may have had legal issues.

> The argument for both is identical How so? I don't have to pay to read most websites. To read most books I have to pay (or a library has to pay and I have to wait to get the book). > IIRC, Google already did your sidenote Not quite. They had to chop the spines off books and have humans feed them into scanners. I'm talking about a robot that can walk (or roll) into a library, use arms to take books off the shelves,…

> How so? I don't have to pay to read most websites. To read most books I have to pay (or a library has to pay and I have to wait to get the book).

"or" does a lot of work, even ignoring that I'd already linked you to a page about deposit libraries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit

Fact is, you can read books for free, just as you can read (many but not all) websites for free. And in both cases you're allowed to use what you learned without paying ongoing licensing fees for having learned anything from either, and even to make money from what you learn.

> Not quite. They had to chop the spines off books and have humans feed them into scanners.

Your statement is over 20 years out of date: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7508978B1/en

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#230

Post by NoOn3 »

blitzar wrote: post #134
dchichkov wrote: post #8

>> In the proposal, OpenAI also said the U.S. needs “a copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” and on “preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.” Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models, with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited in this way, while labs in China are not.

I should have "freedom to learn" about any Tesla in the showroom, any F-35 I see laying around an airbase or the contents of anyone in the governments bank account.

According to this scheme, if you find a bug and can read the bank's data, then you can use it as you want.
Post reply on HN