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

661–670 of 672 posts

Re: US AI Action Plan

#661

Post by thephyber »

pyman wrote: post #411
jdross wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re going to use junior attorneys to do that work. It’s the juniors who will be expected to produce more

What's funny about this report is that it doesn't mention the challenges China, the biggest manufacturing power in the world, faced while automating factories with AI and robots. Considering how advanced China is, maybe it's time we stop talking about the "AI race" and start talking about the "unemployment race." The US government should be asking: how is China tackling unemployment in the age of automation and AI? W…

> So what's the US doing apart from writing PDFs?

If you take their words for it, a large percentage of Trump voters cite employment competition for their complaints with immigration and complain about NAFTA and corporate offshoring of jobs as their rationale for breaking many US institutions + scrambling the Democratic and Republican parties.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#662

Post by rini17 »

Kon5ole wrote: post #653
rini17 wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what are you trying to say, coal plants always have proper maintenance and never caused price hikes, outages and fatal accidents?

>I don't understand what are you trying to say, coal plants always have proper maintenance and never caused price hikes, outages and fatal accidents? No no - I'm saying nobody pays 8 billion per year 14 years after a coal plant accident, no matter what coal plant accident it was. But Japan pays that for Fukushima.

Because nobody (at least in the US and China) takes heavy metals in groundwater as a serious problem. If they did, that would cost much more than Fukushima. It eventually will.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04032019/coal-ash-groundw...

Re: US AI Action Plan

#663

Post by thephyber »

tiahura wrote: post #212
thephyber wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell if the first sentence is sarcasm or not. This document reads like a trade group lobbying the government, not like the government looking out for the interests of its people. With regards to LLM content in the legal system, law firms can use LLMs in the same way an experienced attorney uses a junior attorney to write a first pass. The problem lies when the first pass is sent directly to court without any…

The complainers are missing the panda in the room. This was inevitable as a matter of national security.

If that were a concern, the same people who wrote this document could have opted to keep high performance GPU hardware out of China. Instead, they opted to deregulate Nvidia’s ability to sell to that country, thereby increasing their ability to compete in the AI race.

China is struggling with general economy issues (young degree holder unemployment, unrolling the real estate crisis, the demographic time bomb from the One Child policy). But they are much better posed to solve their energy constraint problems than the US is. Our grid will take MUCH more work to upgrade to support sufficient numbers of AI data centers.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#667

Post by sorcerer-mar »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #135
toofy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you claim that nobody in the US has died due to waiting for care, misdiagnosis, or inefficiency leading to magnified costs i don’t thing they made those claims, at all…

The implication was that since I didn't work in a clinic I couldn't make any inferences or reference to facts sourced from the news. If that's the standard for truth then there's no point in making claims since anyone could just say "uhhh you're not a doctor so you can't say that" ad infinitum.

No the implication is that you’re repeating press releases from extremely biased parties as if they are fact. They are not, and this discredits you.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#668

Post by antonvs »

andsoitis wrote: post #287
antonvs wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> To them, "objectively reflects the truth" means things like black people are inferior, homosexuality is objectively morally wrong, women are subordinate to men, marriage is only between a biological man and a biological woman, and so on and so on. Who are the “them” in your sentence?

People in the current administration and people who support them.

Do you not follow the news?

Re: US AI Action Plan

#669

Post by paradox242 »

From the very first sentence, I can already tell we are doomed if the right breakthroughs are made. It's like people's brains short-circuit when they imagine all the power and wealth that they might command through AI, and they don't take the extra two seconds to consider that any super intelligent system that can deliver on these promises will likely be very quickly outside of their control by definition.

Even during the interval of time these remained under human control, we are talking about people like Altman, Musk and Zuckerberg unilaterally wielding unprecedented economic power. What evidence is there in their behavior or human history in general to believe that this would be anything but bad for the majority of the worlds population?

Meanwhile these companies have been able to successfully nerd-snipe a small army of engineers who are right at that sweet spot of technical excellence and naivete. I won't say this is actually that difficult as these traits actually seem highly correlated in that population as a whole, but they have become the willing instruments of masters which will discard them at the first opportunity.

A global commitment to banning the development of AGI is the only sane response, and the number of people to whom this very premise itself sounds insane tells you just how fucked we are if they pull this off even halfway.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#670

Post by yfvcdycdybguibg »

dangoor wrote: post #573
pizzafeelsright wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whomever has more nuclear power generation will own energy. The cleanest energy is nuclear.

Nuclear is clean, but has other drawbacks. "Solar+Storage is so much farther along than you think": https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-alon...

What a great source when your quote is already a strawman.
Post reply on HN