Is this just to put up a barrier to entry to new entrants in the market so they can have a government enforced monopoly?
yes.
Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
351–360 of 1001 posts
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
ideally, machines replace ALL the jobs
Yeah, but we live in a capitalist society all the benefits of complete automation will go entirely to the capital class who control the AI.
So? Let's not get rid of the robots, let's get rid of the landlords instead!
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#353This is the message I shared with my senator (edited to remove information which could identify me). I hope others will send similar messages. Dear Senator [X], I am an engineer working for [major employer in the state]. I am extremely concerned about the message that Sam Altman is sharing with the Judiciary committee today. Altman wants to create regulatory roadblocks to developing AI. My company produces AI-enabled…
> regulation should focus on ensuring the safety of AIs once they are ready to be put into widespread use - this would allow companies and individuals to research new AIs freely while still ensuring that AI products are properly reviewed. While in general I share the view that _research_ should be unencumbered, but deployment should be regulated, I do take issue with your view that safety only matters once they are r…
I think by "widespread use" he means the reach of the AI System. Dangerous analogy but just to get the idea across: In the same way there is higher tax rates to higher incomes, you should increase regulations in relation to how many people could be potentially affected by the AI system. E.G a Startup with 10 daily users should not be in the same regulation bracket as google. If google deploys an AI it will reach Billions of people compared to 10. This would require a certain level of transparency from companies to get something like an "AI License type" which is pretty reasonable given the dangers of AI (the pragmatic ones not the DOOMsday ones)
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#354The members of this subcommittee are [1]: Chair Richard Blumenthal (CT), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Chris Coons (DE), Mazie Hirono (HI), Alex Padilla (CA), Jon Ossoff (GA) Majority Office: 202-224-2823 Ranking Member Josh Hawley (MO), John Kennedy (LA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Mike Lee (UT), John Cornyn (TX) Minority Office: 202-224-4224 If you’re in those states, please call their D.C. office and read them the comment you’r…
Feel free to call their office but they won't get the message let alone escalate it. Source: manned phones fielding constituent calls earlier in my career.
> manned phones fielding constituent calls earlier in my career
Local or legislative?
I've never met a Senator's leg team that doesn't compile notes on active issues from constituents upstream. (Granted, it's a handful of teams.)
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#355What a wall of words. (The HN comments )
Someone call me when the AI is testifying to the committee. Otherwise, I'm busy.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#356This is quite incredible Could you imagine if MS had convinced the govt back in the day, to require a special license to build an operating system (this blocking Linux and everything open)? It’s essentially what’s happening now, Except it is OpenAI instead of MS, and it is AI instead of Linux AI is the new Linux, they know it, and are trying desperately to stop it from happening
Microsoft did thought. not directly like that because up to the 90s we still have the pretense of being free.
Microsoft did influence government spending in ways that require windows in every govt owned computer, and schools.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither is it an indication of bad intentions and I don't even think SBF was dishonest, his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind. This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.
Altman is simultaneously pumping a crypto project [1]. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/worldcoin-chatgpt-sam-altman-ethe...
Which is sufficient reason to avoid OpenAI now, frankly.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#358This is just regulatory capture. They're trying to build a moat around their product by preventing any scrappy startups from being able to develop new products.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#359Reminds me of SBF calling for crypto regulations while running FTX. Being seen as friendly to regulations is great for optics compared to being belligerently anti-regulation. You can appear responsible and benevolent, and get more opportunity to weaken regulation by controlling more of the narrative. And hey, if you get end up getting some regulatory capture making competition harder, that's a great benefit too. Open…
This is also a way for industry incumbents to pull up the ladder behind them.
Once you gain the lead position, it is in your interest to increase the barriers to entry as much as possible.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#360This is the message I shared with my senator (edited to remove information which could identify me). I hope others will send similar messages. Dear Senator [X], I am an engineer working for [major employer in the state]. I am extremely concerned about the message that Sam Altman is sharing with the Judiciary committee today. Altman wants to create regulatory roadblocks to developing AI. My company produces AI-enabled…
[dead]