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

Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 288 posts

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#271

Post by ProllyInfamous »

aw124 wrote: post #214

Question number one. Is dominance really a necessary part of a country's existence? Can't you just have peaceful relations and supportive relationships with other countries to live in harmony, when artificial intelligence brings benefits to all countries, not just the USA? Can't you build on the technological foundations that have been laid to create sustainable development for your society? The desire for more. To h…

>~Is dominance necessary?

Not necessarily — it's about respect. And a time-tested method is to exert your dominance (typically with violence). Maintaining power[1] is about maintaining respect [2].

[I love that certain groups of sub-ordinate apes have been observed literally tearing the alpha monkey apart, killing him; effectively ending excessive tyrannies]

As a counter-example, among the most respected persons in a prison system is the one who is generous[0] with their commisary. Snickers bars end wars.

"You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar"

>~The desire for more.

"The problem with always winning is you end up having to win all the time." —John Candy

[0] without reciprical expectations

[1] "everything is about sex, except sex; sex is about POWER" — without further commentary, other than are you reading these headlines (PS: he didn't kill himself)?!

[2] If you have not, Tim Urban's book What's Our Problem[3] is among my favorite datageek sociology books. It helped me better understand both my world and my lawyer brothers. He's the author of the excellent Wait But Why? blog.

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Our-Problem-Self-Help-Societies...>

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#272

Post by SXX »

soulofmischief wrote: post #269
SXX wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying I support either. I am just looking at US politics from outside. But this is how your democracy system works.

You asked, "Whats wrong if US population has voted for this?" in response to someone complaining that the system is not working, and so I explained it: the rest of us are not represented. I'm unsure what point you're getting at.

My point is: presidents are not delivered to your country by president delivery alien space ship. A lot of people voted for him and this is a fact. You cant just blame everyone of them for being dumb or racist. If you dont like their choice that means you should starting to do something about it.

Authorithorianism also not just happen - it take years to build and destroy institutions. It took 20 years to build fascist regime in my country.

Sorry for not making it clear enough.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#273

Post by idiotsecant »

mnky9800n wrote: post #211
Dumblydorr wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true that US is 100% gas pedal constantly on innovation. You’re forgetting labor reform movements and the service switch away from industry in the last few decades. Also the de-science-ing of the current admin has vastly reduced our innovative capacity, as well as the virtual decapitation of brain drain. Those next generation of brightest immigrants certainly aren’t coming here to deal with ICE, and that’s been t…

I kind of doubt American scientists will leave en masse to go elsewhere. Their options are only Europe, the UK, or China. Most will not be willing to give up the salaries or the resources available to scientists in the USA, even with the current administration, to go live in strongly hierarchical academic systems that they don’t know how to navigate. Especially not for a 30% salary reduction (or more if they go somep…

They don't have to go anywhere if they just don't come here. American science works on the back of underpaid foreign born graduate students. If they aren't there, neither is American science. It's already started. And that's not even considering the other 'reforms' currently deliberately crushing academia. The first thing a new fascist regime needs to crush is the immigrants, and the second is academia. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/graduate-studen...

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#274

Post by idiotsecant »

bit1993 wrote: post #201
johnebgd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Patents, trademarks, copyright, deeds and other similar concepts are part of what makes capitalism what it is, without them capitalism will not work because they are the mechanisms that enforce private property.

Good luck with that. When 3/4 of the world laughs at your patent what is the point of patents? IP only works when everyone agrees to it. When they don't it's just a handicap on the ones who do that benefits nobody.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#275

Post by idiotsecant »

ajross wrote: post #248
oceanplexian wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes. Where did you get the idea that banning new technology that could eliminate jobs is even remotely an American value? Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption, which has in turn created millions of jobs that di…

> Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption Arguably true, but it's also been way ahead of the pack (people tend to forget this) on protection for organized labor, social safety net entitlements, and regulation of harmful industrial safety and environmental externalities. This statement is awfully one-sided.

I am not sure you can call it being 'ahead of the pack' when we are currently furiously disassembling those forward thinking ideas.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#276

Post by true_religion »

XenophileJKO wrote: post #264
true_religion wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who got hurt before the US banned the export of cryptography?

That wasn't in the list above. We were talking primarily about consumer/market protections.

Rubyfan mentioned nuclear technology, which like cryptography, has a broad scope and military applications so isn’t something that was just left to the market to decide the best fit.

I don’t think I’ve left the scope of this discussion.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#277

Post by mrwrong »

Arodex wrote: post #185
dylan604 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea behind self improving AGI is that it will "get" every "new something coming along" before everyone else.

I personally believe magical unicorns are going to save us

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#278

Post by XenophileJKO »

true_religion wrote: post #276
XenophileJKO wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't in the list above. We were talking primarily about consumer/market protections.

Rubyfan mentioned nuclear technology, which like cryptography, has a broad scope and military applications so isn’t something that was just left to the market to decide the best fit. I don’t think I’ve left the scope of this discussion.

I was more talking about the consumer radiation side. Radium water to drink, women licking and painting radium watch dials. Toy physics kits for kids with uranium in it. Uranium glass also isn't great.

I mean the radium fad just by itself was pretty crazy, people used radium suppositories and radium makeup.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#279

Post by peter_d_sherman »

The following passage seems particularly noteworthy:

>"Sec. 3. AI Litigation Task Force. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General’s judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order. The Task Force shall consult from time to time with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President regarding the emergence of specific State AI laws that warrant challenge."

It would seem logical to believe that there will be a number of AI-meets-law legal cases in the future, both in the U.S., it's States, and in the jurisdictions of foreign countries and their respective States/Districts/Regions...

I'm guessing (but not knowing) that the U.N. will have its own similar task force in the future -- as will other countries and their jurisdictional / law-making regions...

It will be interesting (at least from the perspective of a disinterested-in-outcome-but-interested-in-process legal observer) to see what cases (and also what laws/statutes) emerge in this area (Region Vs. Nation, Nation Vs. Region, Nation Vs. Nation, Region Vs. Region) in the future, and how they will be resolved...

(You know, for students of AI, students of Law, and students of The Future...)

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#280

Post by noduerme »

tehjoker wrote: post #234
noduerme wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We have had the capacity to have zero poverty for many decades, maybe over a century. China eliminated extreme poverty.

So has America. But the definition of poverty is not absolute positioned, to borrow a CSS analogy. Poverty gets defined relative to wealth. Overall, this is a good thing. But knowing that your poverty is rich compared to the poverty of two generations ago doesn't satisfy humans who gauge their relative social position and are unhappy with it.
Post reply on HN