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

Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#681

Post by vortext »

happytiger wrote: post #649
downWidOutaFite wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source doesn't mean outside the reach of regulation, which I would guess is your real desire. You downplay AI's potential danger while well knowing that we are at a historic inflection point. I believe in democracy as the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried. We the people must be in control of our destiny.

Hear, hear. Excellent point, and I don't mean to imply it shouldn't be regulated. However, it has been my general experience that concentrating immense power in governments doesn't typically lead to more security, so perhaps we just have a difference of philosophy. Democracy will not withstand AI when it's fully developed. Let me offer a better written explanation of my general views than I could ever muster up for a…

*Hear, hear.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#682

Post by Animats »

This is a diversion from the real problem. Regulating AI is really about regulating corporate behavior. What's needed is regulation along these lines:

* Automated systems should not be permitted to make adverse decisions against individuals. This is already law in the EU, although it's not clear if it is enforced. This is the big one. Any company using AI to make decisions which affect external parties in any way must not be allowed to require any waiver of the right to sue, participate in class actions, or have the case heard by a jury. Those clauses companies like to put in EULAs would become invalid as soon as an AI is involved anywhere.

* All marketing content must be signed by a responsible party. AI systems increase the amount of new content generated for marketing purposes substantially. This is already required in the US, but weakly enforced. Both spam and "influencers" tend to violate this. The problem isn't AI, but AI makes it worse, because it's cheaper than troll farms, and writes better.

* Anonymous political speech may have to go. That's a First Amendment right in the US, but it's not unlimited. You should be able to say anything you're willing to sign.[1] This is, again, the troll farm problem, and, again, AIs make it worse.

That's probably enough to deal with the immediate problems.

[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/32/anonymous-speech

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#683

Post by brookst »

elil17 wrote: post #129

This 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…

What specific ideas has Altman proposed that you disagree with? And where has he said AI could hack its way out of a laboratory?

I agree with being skeptical of proposals from those with vested interests, but are you just arguing against what you imagine Altman will say, or did I miss some important news?

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#684

Post by no4120k1 »

wellthisisgreat wrote: post #469

Capitalist, 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

[dead]

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#685

Post by happytiger »

simonh wrote: post #672
happytiger wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. It's going to absolutely shred the trademark and copyright systems, if they even apply (or are extended to apply) which is a murky area right now. And even then, the sheer volume of material created by a geometric improvement and subsequent cost destruction of virtually every intellectual and artistic endeavor or product means that even if you hold the copyright or trademark, good luck paying for enforcem…

> What people also fail to understand is that AI is largely seen by the military industrial complex as a weapon to control culture and influence. Could you share the minutes from the Military Industrial Complex strategy meetings this was discussed at. Thanks.

"Hello, is this Lockheed? Yea? I'm an intern for happytiger on Hackernews. Some guy named Simon H. wants the meeting minutes for the meeting where we discussed the weaponization potential for AI."

[pause]

"No? Ok, I'll tell him."

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#687

Post by robwwilliams »

ben_w wrote: post #599
happytiger wrote: post #497

We need to MAKE SURE that AI as a technology ISN'T controlled by a small number of powerful corporations with connections to governments. To expound, this just seems like a power grab to me, to "lock in" the lead and keep AI controlled by a small number of corporations that can afford to license and operate the technologies. Obviously, this will create a critical nexus of control for a small number of well connected…

You're not wrong, except in so far as that's parochial. A government-controlled… never mind artificial god, a government-controlled story teller can be devastating. I don't buy Musk's claim ChatGPT is "woke" (or even that the term is coherent enough to be tested), but I can say that each government requiring AI to locally adhere to national mythology, will create self-reinforcing cognitive blind spots, because that a…

> I can say that each government requiring AI to locally adhere to national mythology, will create self-reinforcing cognitive blind spots, because that already happens at the current smaller scale of manual creation and creators being told not to "talk the country down".

This is a key point. Every culture and agency and state will want (deserve) their own homespun AGI. But can we all learn how to accommodate to or accept a cultural multiverse when money and resources are zero-sum in many dimensions.

Hanno Rajaniemi’s Quantum Thief trilogy gives you a foretaste of where we could end up.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#689

Post by happytiger »

vortext wrote: post #681
happytiger wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear, hear. Excellent point, and I don't mean to imply it shouldn't be regulated. However, it has been my general experience that concentrating immense power in governments doesn't typically lead to more security, so perhaps we just have a difference of philosophy. Democracy will not withstand AI when it's fully developed. Let me offer a better written explanation of my general views than I could ever muster up for a…

*Hear, hear.

Thank you. Corrected.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#690

Post by shon »

abeppu wrote: post #330
elil17 wrote: post #129

This 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…

> For example, if next month you developed a model that could produce extremely high quality video clips from text and reference images, you did a small, gated beta release with no PR, and one of your beta testers immediately uses it to make e.g. highly realistic revenge porn.

You make a great point here. This is why we need as much open source and as much wide adoption as possible. Wide adoption = public education in the most effective way.

The reason we are having this discussion at all is precisely because OpenAI, Stability.ai, FAIR/Llama, and Midjourney have had their products widely adopted and their capabilities have shocked and educated the whole world, technologists and laymen alike.

The benefit of adoption is education. The world is already adapting.

Doing anything that limits adoption or encourages the underground development of AI tech is a mistake. Regulating it in this way will push it underground and make it harder to track and harder for the public to understand and prepare for.

Post reply on HN