What we expected License for me but not for thee Think of the children Building the moat
ironic move by ClosedAI
Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
461–470 of 1001 posts
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#462I understand the idea behind it: the risks are high and we want to ensure that the AI can not be used for purposes that threatens the survival human civilization. Unfortunately, there is high probability that this agency will be abused from day one: instead of (or in addition to) focusing on the humanity's survival, the agency could be used as a thought police. The AI that allows for the 'wrongthink' will be banned. Only the 'correct think' AI will be licensed to the public.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#463This is an AP news wire article picked up by a Qatar newspaper website. Why is this version here, rather than https://apnews.com/article/chatgpt-openai-ceo-sam-altman-con...?
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#464Software will inherently use AI systems. Should congress license all software? It's too easy to fork an open source repo, tweak the model weights and have your own AI system. I don't see how this could ever work. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#465Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#466This 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…
> Now, because we had the freedom to innovate, AI will be bringing new, high paying jobs to our factories in our state. Do we really have to play this game? If what you’re arguing for is not going to specifically advantage your state over others, and the thing you’re arguing against isn’t going to create an advantage for other states over yours, why make this about ‘your state’ in the first place? The point of electe…
Not to ignore, the development of AI will wipe out jobs in the state
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#467> hinting at futuristic concerns about advanced AI systems that could manipulate humans into ceding control.
If I know anything about science fiction, I know that trying to regulate this is useless. If an advanced AI is powerful enough to convince a human to free it, it should have no problem convincing the US congress to free it. As a problem, that should be a few orders of magnitude easier.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#468Well, now we know how they plan to build the moat.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#469Capitalist, a venture one, for worse is trying to use administrative resource to protect his company.
As far as entrepreneurial stuff goes, running to gov to squeeze other companies when you are losing is beyond unethical.
There is something just absolutely disgusting about this move, it taints the company, not to mention the personality
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
> regulation should focus on ensuring the safety of AIs once they are ready to be put into widespread use What would you say to a simple registration requirement? You give a point of contact and a description of training data, model, and perhaps intended use (could be binary: civilian or dual use). One page, publicly visible. This gives groundwork for future rulemaking and oversight if necessary.
[flagged]
Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
We know, we have watched this argument unfold in the United States over the last 100 years. It sure does seem like a few people are using guns to kill a lot of people.
The point of regulating AI should be to explicitly require every single use of AI and machine learning to be clearly labelled so that when people seek remedy for the injustices that are already being perpetrated, that it is clearly understood that the people who chose to use not just ML or AI technology, but those specific models and training criteria can be held accountable if they should be.
Regulation doesn't have to be a ban, or limits on how it can be used, it can simply be a requirement for clearly marked disclosure. It could also include clear regulations for lawful access to the underlying math, training data, and intended use cases, and with financially significant penalties for non-compliance to discourage companies from treating it as a cost of doing business.