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

281–288 of 288 posts

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#281

Post by true_religion »

XenophileJKO wrote: post #278
true_religion wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah I see. Thats definitely a case of regulations written in blood. I do think it strengthens the argument that we shouldn’t wait for wide spread adoption to cause problems, but rather study the issue and limit exposure until safety is at last vaguely known.

With AI, I don’t think there will be a lot of needed regulation until it gets to AI controlling physical machines like self driving cars. But in that respect, we already began regulating before problems appeared.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#282

Post by ETH_start »

hvb2 wrote: post #242
ETH_start wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we use BEA/FRED "compensation of employees" (wages + benefits), the payroll picture is: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A4076C0A144NBEA All US government employees (federal + state + local): $2.409T in 2023. US nominal GDP in 2023: $27.812T. So government compensation = ~8.7% of GDP (2.409 / 27.812). Breakdown (2023): Federal government compensation: $634.9B (~2.3% of GDP). State + local compensation: $1.7846T…

Since you took the data for federal and state and local, you end up with 22.51 million employees[1]. Out of a total number of employed people of ~160M that's 1 in 8 employees. If you're calling 1 in 8 'a small share' the we just disagree there. As to the $400 statistic, let me just point out that this > That leads to those who qualify for many social programs, i.e. low-income earners, to put aside a relatively small…

Government employees are ~7% of the population, ~12–13% of employment, but account for roughly a quarter of government spending through payroll.

As for the $400 statistic, it in no way shows that US disposable income PPP is lower than peer countries.

Liquidity does not equal income and savings behavior does not equal purchasing power.

That generous welfare systems reduce savings is well-documented finding.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#283

Post by nh23423fefe »

scythmic_waves wrote: post #26
nh23423fefe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, why would you bother not exercising power you possess?

Yep. I punch literally everyone I meet in the face. I have the power to do it. Why would I not?

You don't have that power, you'll either be beaten by your adversaries unless you only target weak people. And then you'll be arrested. You don't have the power you claim to have. You can't punch people.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#284

Post by tehjoker »

noduerme wrote: post #280
tehjoker wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I routinely see homeless people what are you going on about

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#285

Post by drivingmenuts »

hcurtiss wrote: post #141
drivingmenuts wrote: post #107

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 know about that. The poor from just about every other country in the world seem desperate to live in America. While American capitalism has many faults, oppressing the bottom quintile is not one of them. The US median income is consistently top ten globally.

The US does a good job of selling the idea of living here and getting rich, though it does a better job of selling it to people who aren't already embedded in daily life in the US. While we have, perhaps, much lower numbers of extreme poverty compared to a lot of countries, as one of the richest countries, and growing richer by the day, we should have zero extreme poverty. The people with the will to fix our poverty lack the money and very few with money have no real desire to help the less fortunate.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#286

Post by alterom »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #247
milowata wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case against this EO is not “banning new technology”. It’s not allowing the federal government to ban any state regulation. And states having the power to make their own rules is maybe the most American value.

It's not even that, as this isn't Federal Law.

It's Federal Blackmail.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#287

Post by some_guy_nobel »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #22
conception wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or why bother when no one will stop you from ruling by fiat?

Yes, why would you bother not exercising power you possess?

> Yes, why would you bother not exercising power you possess?

By that logic, I suppose well-funded police should respond to every call with a SWAT team, or at the least guns drawn?

(I guess Uncle Ben's quote in Spiderman actually wasn't redundant!)

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#288

Post by noduerme »

tehjoker wrote: post #284
noduerme wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I routinely see homeless people what are you going on about

Have you ever seen one who was starving? Do they lack access to clean drinking water? Are there malnourished children, without access to schools, begging in America?

Have you ever been to a country where there was extreme poverty?

When people talk about China eliminating extreme poverty, that has a specific international definition. From Wikipedia:

Extreme poverty is the most severe type of poverty, defined by the United Nations (UN) as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services". Historically, other definitions have been proposed within the United Nations.

Extreme poverty mainly refers to an income below the international poverty line of $1.90 per day in 2018 ($2.66 in 2024 dollars), set by the World Bank.[0]

The average homeless person in America spends several times that amount on drugs, and all of the above services are available to them. Homelessness in America is a societal failure, but it does not meet the definition of extreme poverty.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

Post reply on HN