701–710 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also that he knows how inefficient and dumb government is. By the time the regulations are in place they won't matter one iota.
Think most of congress needs help from their grandchildren to use a computer or smartphone, pretty sure they don’t understand one bit of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except they don't make any money from their products. They're losing hundreds of millions per month. This isn't the same at all.
It may be more the same than you know. FTX had tons of investors in it that was jumpstarting and fueling the whole ponzi... >According to a report from the Information, OpenAI's losses have doubled to $540 million since it started developing ChatGPT and similar products. I mean sure that may be a drop in the bucket compared to the 29B valuation for Open AI, but- >Sept. 22, 2022 >Crypto Exchange FTX May Get a $32 Bill…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also growing speculation that the current level of AI may have peaked in a bang for buck sense. If this is so, and given the concrete examples of cheap derived models learning from the first movers and rapidly (and did I mention cheaply) closing the gap to this peak, the optimal self-serving corporate play is to invite regulation. After the legislative moats go up, it is once again about who has the biggest…
Counterpoint—-there is growing speculation we are just about to transition to AGI.
We're going to get some super cool and some super dystopian stuff out of them but LLMs are never going to go into a recursive loop of self-improvement and become machine gods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> nope, congress does not need to regulate AI. Not regulating the air quality we breathe for decades turned out amazing for millions of the Americas. Yes, lets do the same with AI! What could possibility go wrong?
I think this is a great argument in the opposite direction.. atoms matter, information isn’t. A small group of people subjugated many others to poisonous matter. That matter affected their bodies and a causal link could be made. Even if you really believe that somewhere in the chain of consequences derived from LLMs there could be grave and material damage or other affronts to human dignity, there is almost always a…
And it isn't a strong argument for the same reason that it isn't a good argument when used to argue we should allow human cloning and just focus on regulating the more direct causal links like non-clone employment loss from mass produced hyper-intelligent clones, and ensuring they have legal rights, and having proper oversight and non-clone human accountability.
Maybe those things could all make ethical human cloning viable. But I think the world coming together and being like "holy shit this is happening too fast. Our institutions aren't ready at all nor will they adapt fast enough. Global ban" was the right call.
It is not impossible that a similar call is also appropriate here with AI. I personally dunno what the right call is, but I'm pretty skeptical of any strong claim that it could never be the right call to outright ban some forms of advanced AI research just like we did with some forms of advanced genetic engineering research.
This isn't like banning numbers at all. The blame falling on the corner-cutters doesn't mean the right call is always to just tell the blamed not to cut corners. In some cases the right call is instead taking away their corner-cutting tool.
At least until our institutions can catch up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ac…
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…
> 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…
A lot of said constituents' views are, in practice, that they should receive special advantages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But goodness gracious we need to be going in the EXACT OPPOSITE direction — open source "core inspectable" AIs that millions of people can examine and tear apart, including and ESPECIALLY the training data and processes that create them Except ... when you look at the problem from a military/national security viewpoint. Do we really want to give this tech away just like that?
If you mean US by 'we', it is problematic because AI inventions are happening all over the globe, much more outside US than inside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the definition of regulatory capture. Altman should be invited to speak so that we understand the ideas in his head but anything he suggests should be categorically rejected because he’s just not in a position to be trusted. If what he suggests are good ideas then hopefully we can arrive at them in some other way with a clean chain of custody. Although I assume if he’s speaking on AI they actually intend on c…
I'm not following this "good ideas must come from an ideologically pure source" thing. Shouldn't we be evaluating ideas on the merits and not categorically rejecting (or endorsing) them based on who said them?
The problem is when only the entrenched industry players & legislators have a voice, there are many ideas & perspectives that are simply not heard or considered. Industrial groups have a long history of using regulations to entrench their positions & to stifle competition...creating a "barrier to entry" as they say. Going beyond that, industrial groups have shaped public perception & the regulatory apparatus to effectively create a company store, where the only solutions to some problem effectively (or sometimes legally) must go through a small set of large companies.
This concern is especially prescient now, as these technologies are unprecedentedly disruptive to many industries & private life. Using worst case scenario fear mongering as a justification to regulate the extreme majority of usage that will not come close to these fears, is disingenuous & almost always an overreach of governance.
wow, not one comment here seems to address the first sentence of the article: the use of artificial intelligence to interfere with election integrity is a "significant area of concern", adding that it needs regulation. Can't there be regulation so that AI doesn't interfere with the election process?
regulation to protect the integrity of elections is good and necessary. is there any reason to think that there needs to be regulation specific to AI that doesn't apply to other situations? Whether you use ChatGPT or Mechanical Turk to write your thousands of spam posts on social media to sway the election isn't super-relevant. it's the attempt to influence the election that should be regulated, not the AI.