71–80 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US leadership was literally asking for this.
US leadership seems clueless and they just fell for regulatory capture. Regulate AI applications, not fundamental research in it.
Cool. Great job guys. Now do one for CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION, RIGHTS AND PRIVACY. I WILL EVEN LET YOU COME UP WITH A FUNNY LITTLE 3 LETTER AGENCY NAME FOR IT. I DO NOT CARE.
Netizen Safety Agency?
Citizens(/Consumers) Browsing in Privacy?
to repurpose a couple.
So I'm assuming some of you have seen more details - can someone share where they can be found?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to argue two things: 1. There are risks specific to AI or specifically aggravated by AI (easy) 2. Federal regulation of AI safety will reduce those risks (good luck) When articulating your arguments for point 2, I would recommend addressing the thorny issue of proliferation.
It's not my job nor I have the imagination or the knowledge to argue 2. But don't you agree at least some legal questions should be asked about this overhype of AI ? Because I don't see any so far. Edit : this is the kind of legal question I was talking about, just learned it now : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38102760
I have trouble answering that question as you've asked it. It seems like we agree on several things, namely:
1. that any technology is subject to worst-case analysis; and,
2. that it is appropriate in principle for law to govern the use of technology.
Here's what I'm having trouble unpacking in your question:
1. What are the exact legal questions you think should be asked, and aren't? (N.B. Your link is paywalled, and doesn't seem to refer to a specific legal question)
2. What is it about AI exactly that you think is overhyped, and seem to think I disagree with?
I don't have a lot of context to go on, so some of my questions may also contain unwarranted assumptions. I hope you'll point them out :)
1. Have you thought about the difficulties involved in legislating around AI? Specifically, I've found it very difficult to articulate what is and isn't appropriate use of AI with any real precision. Let me give an example. I think we can all agree that "nudifying" photographs of minors is at least in poor taste, if not outright dangerous, and that it is fair game to make this particular usage of technology illegal. However, where do you stand on the idea that regulators should disallow the "nudification" use altogether? I can think of several legitimate (if a bit niche) uses, ranging from the creation of medical diagrams and teaching materials to filming love scenes in mainstream cinema with cloths-on and removing the cloths in post-processing. Do you think it's fair game to disallow these uses? If so, should this be absolute liability or should there be a notion of intent? If you think, as I do, that the technical capability should be unrestricted except insofar as it is employed to illegal ends, then we don't need any new laws. We simply apply the laws against, say, involuntary pornography and sexual exploitation of minors, and the problem is solved from a legal perspective; it is now a job for the executive branch.
2. I would appreciate it if you could speak to the risk of misclassification. Many of the proposed regulations involve training AI systems to monitor other AI systems (or themselves, as with the case of prompt engineering). What happens when the black box makes mistakes? Do we accept that a small number of innocent people will be labeled X by AI? How should the law take this possibility into account? Again, do we accept that legitimate uses are de facto crippled or entirely disabled? That's one outcome I would very much like to avoid.
3. On a macro-scale, how do we deal with the fact that other (perhaps less scrupulous) nations will have access to unrestricted AI?
Point 3 is particularly troubling from a regulation perspective, because the penchant of software for proliferation is astronomically higher than that of, say, nuclear weapons. This feels like the 90's crypto export-controls all over again, which is minimally a gigantic waste of resources and maximally a crippling economical vulnerability.
P.S.: My friend, it is exactly your job to argue your case when speaking about public issues. The term for this is "civic duty".
I must be missing something, as I'm not seeing the information in the linked press release that is fueling the specific commentary here around what the government intends to do, as all this seems to say is that they plan to create standards and provide testing environments. I'm sure there is more to it, I just didn't see where any of those facts were posted. So I'm assuming some of you have seen more details - can so…
It is against HN rules to call out a commenter for having not read the article, and earlier comments set the tone of the discussion when a post hits the front page. For many posts, by the time it hits the front page, the top-voted comments often include hot takes from someone who just saw the title and wrote a comment about whatever they imagined the article to be.
Cool. Great job guys. Now do one for CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION, RIGHTS AND PRIVACY. I WILL EVEN LET YOU COME UP WITH A FUNNY LITTLE 3 LETTER AGENCY NAME FOR IT. I DO NOT CARE.
"(a) prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce;
(b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers;
(c) prescribe rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices;
(d) gather and compile information and conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and
(e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress and the public. "
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/federal-tr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure China and Russia and Iran and all those other nations will 100% see the value of artificially restricting their AI efforts as well because of the risk of harm, and be socially responsible global citizens, that won't exploit this edge for thier own geopolitical agenda.
I doubt any military or strategically important applications will be regulated
Insane to me that, given a multi-year lead in tech, capability, talent, the USA is shooting itself in the foot re: innovation around AI. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory... damn
(I'm not endorsing this regulation. It's not at all clear than any regulation could be helpful. As you say, these regulations aren't going to slow non-US research efforts.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we're in the final stages of capitalism This is wrong in the sense that modern mixed economies are already post-capitalist if you take a narrow view of capitalism, and also almost certainly wrong if you take the broader view of capitalism which encompasses the modern mixed economy (say, any system featuring private ownership of the means of production even if the practical exercise of control of owners is constrain…
You're right. I should have said: "we're in the final stages of any semblance of socioeconomic mobility within a free market system". > “Late-stage capitalism” wishcasting may be the most annoying current form of secular millenarian eschatology. This is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of the pyramid and when not amongst the literally billions of people being crushed at the bottom. You should try putt…
"Free-market system" isn't a thing that actually exists in the real world, but even leaving that aside, no, that's not defensible, either.
> > “Late-stage capitalism” wishcasting may be the most annoying current form of secular millenarian eschatology.
> This is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of the pyramid and when not amongst the literally billions of people being crushed at the bottom.
It's exactly the opposite: eschatological wishcasting doesn't contribute to solving problems; it is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of the pyramid, etc., etc., without any cost, and without any motivation to do something because the problem will be imminently fixed by the teleological design of the universe.
> You should try putting in 60+ hours of blue collar labor across 3 different jobs just to end up paycheck to paycheck in the slummiest part of a major US city. And that would still be miles better than where most people are at in the rest of the world.
"Lots of people live in crappy conditions" doesn't support either your original or revised description, however true it certainly is, and however much of an urgent problem it is to address.
Let's shoot US innovation and leadership in the foot by establishing random limits on foundation model research. According to EO's guidelines on commpute, something like GPT4 probably falls under reporting guidelines. Also, in the last 10 years GPU compute capabilities grew 1000x. What will be happening even 2 or 5 years from now? Edit: yes, regulations are necessary but we should regulate applications of AI, not fun…
As for reporting minimums, the ones in the EO are explicitly temporary. Quoting directly: "...shall define, and thereafter update as needed on a regular basis, the set of technical conditions for models and computing clusters that would be subject to the reporting requirements..." "Until such technical conditions are defined, the Secretary shall require compliance with these reporting requirements..."
So, my question is: why are you ignoring the actual things happening in favor of complaining about phantoms?