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

US AI Action Plan

ai.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 672 posts

Re: US AI Action Plan

#521

Post by myaccountonhn »

omcnoe wrote: post #366
breakingcups wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, for one, dont't agree with the idea that Europe is too regulatory and bureaucratic. I welcome my rights as a consumer and human being being safeguarded at the cost of a small amount of profit.

Registering a company in Germany: you must visit a notary in person with your incorporation documents, and sit there while the notary reads aloud your incorporation to you. This is to "ensure that you fully understand the contract" even as a foreigner who doesn't speak corporate-legalese-German. Minimum capital deposit of €25,000. Registering a company in US (Delaware) can be achieved in as little as 1 hour. Getting…

In Sweden registering a company is as simple as filling out a form online. Same goes for taxes, my partner is from US and each year filling in taxes is a headache. Here? Two clicks and I'm done.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#522

Post by infamouscow »

softwaredoug wrote: post #504

Obviously AI is a massive and important area for economic growth. But so is clean energy. And both right now are at an inflection point. It seems the US is going to thrive with the former but naively stick our heads in the sands with the latter. We’ll cede economic leadership, and wonder in 20 years what happened as other countries lead in energy. Even worse, the administrations stance will encourage US energy compan…

People love using their pet issue as the sole explanation for why something did or didn't happen. It's never that simple.

My boomer boss thinks writing tests is unnecessary and slows shipping down. It might be true, but it fails to appreciate the full scope of the problem.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#523

Post by 2600 »

softwaredoug wrote: post #504

Obviously AI is a massive and important area for economic growth. But so is clean energy. And both right now are at an inflection point. It seems the US is going to thrive with the former but naively stick our heads in the sands with the latter. We’ll cede economic leadership, and wonder in 20 years what happened as other countries lead in energy. Even worse, the administrations stance will encourage US energy compan…

It's part of the current administration's energy agenda, President Trump signed executive orders a couple of months ago, to increase nuclear energy capacity by 400% in the next 25 years, revising regulations, and expediting review and approval of reactor projects, which seems like the most effective strategy for expanding clean energy production.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#524

Post by patcon »

rwmj wrote: post #520
shortrounddev2 wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk of AI is that they are used for industrial scale misinformation

Definitely a risk, and already happening, but I presume mostly closed source AIs are used for this? Like, people using the ChatGPT APIs to generate spam; or Grok just doing its normal thing. Don't see how the open vs closed debate has much to do with it.

You can't see how a hosted private model (that can monitor usage and adapt mechanisms to that) has a different risk profile than an open weight model (that is unmonitorable and becomes more and more runnable on more and more hardware every month)?

One can become more controlled and wrangle in the edge-cases, and the other has exploding edges.

You can have your politics around the value of open source models, but I find it hard to argue that there aren't MUCH higher risks with the lack of containment of open weights models

Re: US AI Action Plan

#525

Post by ancillary »

glitchc wrote: post #478
davidmurdoch wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much land mass would need to be covered by solar panels to power this future AI infrastructure. Yes, I'm implying that solar would be impractical, but I'm also genuinely curious.

Even though I think solar is impractical as a primary source for various reasons, it doesn't take a lot. David MacKay in "Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air" did a calculation circa 2010. To fulfill the world's energy needs back then, a 10 km^2 area in the Sahara desert would be sufficient. Even if you scaled that to 100 km^2, it's absolutely tiny on a global scale, and panels have only become more efficient sin…

I was curious about this number, so: 10 km^2 is 10mil square meters, Googling suggests that the theoretical maximum energy captured by a square meter of solar panel is well under 0.5 kW, so well under 12 kWh per day. Say 10 kWh for neatness. Then multiplying by 10mil gives 100mil kWh. More Googling suggests that 10 TWh is a comfortable lower bound for daily world energy usage, but 100mil kWh is 0.1 TWh.

So maybe 1000 km^2 is more like right order of magnitude. That's still tiny, about Hong Kong-sized. Even 100000 km^2 is about South Korea.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#526

Post by troyvit »

sbelskie wrote: post #468
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current AIs are anything but politically neutral.

So the government should step in to dictate what neutrality means?

Seriously. Is _that_ what it means to have a conservative government? Because I thought it meant they would keep their hands off the market. This is straight from the PDF though:

"Led by the Department of Commerce (DOC) through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), revise the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change."

Re: US AI Action Plan

#527

Post by logicchains »

saubeidl wrote: post #473
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current AIs are anything but politically neutral.

There is no such thing as politically neutral. Whatever you perceive as such is just a reflection of your own ideology.

There absolutely is; formally speaking, statements can be categorised into normative, saying how things should be, and positive, saying how things are. A politically neutral AI would avoid making any explicit or implicit normative statements.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#528

Post by upquacker »

softwaredoug wrote: post #504

Obviously AI is a massive and important area for economic growth. But so is clean energy. And both right now are at an inflection point. It seems the US is going to thrive with the former but naively stick our heads in the sands with the latter. We’ll cede economic leadership, and wonder in 20 years what happened as other countries lead in energy. Even worse, the administrations stance will encourage US energy compan…

[dead]

Re: US AI Action Plan

#529

Post by BeFlatXIII »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #517
rwmj wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"major security risks" as in Terminator style robot overlords, or (to me more likely) they enable people to develop exploits more easily? Anyway I fail to see how it makes much difference if the models are open or closed, since the barrier to entry to creating new models is not that large (as in, any competent large company or nation state can do it easily), and even if they were all closed source, anyone who has the…

The risk of AI is that they are used for industrial scale misinformation

You don't need frontier models to do that. GPT-3 was already good enough.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#530

Post by AdamN »

sbelskie wrote: post #468
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current AIs are anything but politically neutral.

So the government should step in to dictate what neutrality means?

Isn't that why we have government? We have judges to make the final say on right and wrong and what the punishments are for transgressions, legislatures to make laws and allocate money based on the needs of the constituents, and an executive function to carry out the will of the stakeholders.

Clearly there are terrible governments but if it's not government tackling these issues then there will be limited control by the people and it will simply be those with the most money define the landscape.

Post reply on HN