Oh yeah.... putting the government who get campaing donations from big tech in the middle of all is gonna make everything ok.
Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
811–820 of 1001 posts
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#812Earlier 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 remember when a different Sam — Mr. Bankman Fried came to testify and ask a different government agency CFTC to oversee cryptocurrency, and put regulations and licenses in place. AI is following the path of Web3
That was entirely different, and a play to muddy the regulatory waters and maybe buy him time: the CFTC is much smaller (budget, staff) than the SEC, and less aggressive in criminal enforcement. Aided by a bill introduced by crypto-friendly Sens Lummis and Gillibrand [https://archive.ph/vqHgC].
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#813We 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…
Happy Tiger I will remember because I agree totally. Yes "OpenAi/Microsoft" is right way to think about this attempt.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#814We 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…
I said this about Sam Altman and open AI years ago and got poo pooed repeatedly in various fora. "But It's OPEN!" "But it's a non-profit!" "But they're the good guys!" And here we are - Sam trying to lock down his first mover advantage with the boot heel of the state for profit. It's fucking disgusting.
As a wise person once said
> You either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain
Sam Altman has made the full character arc
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#815My suggestions:
Don't regulate AI directly, but rather how it's used, and make it harder for companies to horde, access, and share huge amounts of personal information.
1) Impose strict privacy rules prohibiting companies from sharing personal information without their consent. If customers withhold their consent, they may not retaliate or degrade their services for that customer in any way.
2) Establish a clear line of accountability that establishes some party as directly responsible for what the AI does. If a self-driving car gets a speeding ticket, it should be clear who is liable. If you use a racist AI to make hiring decisions, "the algorithm made me hire only white people" is no defense -- and maybe the people who made the racist AI in the first place are responsible too.
3) Require AI in some contexts to act in the best interests of the user (similar concept to a fiduciary -- or maybe it's exactly the same thing). In contexts where it's not required, it should be clear to the user that the AI is not obligated to act in their best interests.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#816This is quite incredible Could you imagine if MS had convinced the govt back in the day, to require a special license to build an operating system (this blocking Linux and everything open)? It’s essentially what’s happening now, Except it is OpenAI instead of MS, and it is AI instead of Linux AI is the new Linux, they know it, and are trying desperately to stop it from happening
Is the old MS tactic of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? Albeit through the mask of OpenAI / Altman?
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#817Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point of these letters? Everyone knows this is rent-seeking behavior by OpenAI, and they're going to pay off the right politicians to get it passed. Dear Senator [X], It's painfully obvious that Sam Altman's testimony before the judiciary committee is an attempt to set up rent-seeking conditions for OpenAI, and to snuff out competition from the flourishing open source AI community. We will be carefully mon…
If you want to influence the politicians without money, this is not the way.
The way is not emails some office assistant deletes when they do not align with the already chosen path forward they just need Cherry picked support to leverage to manufacture consent
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#818This 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…
So you sent a letter saying “Mr Congress save my job that is putting others jobs at risk.”
You think voice actors and writers are not saying the same?
When do we accept capitalism as we know it is just a bullshit hallucination we grew up with? It’s no more an immutable feature of reality than a religion?
I don’t owe propping up some rich person’s figurative identity, or yours for that matter.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#819It seems to me every licensing regime begins with incumbents lobbying for protection from competition, then goes down in history as absolutely necessary consumer protection programs.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#820Open AI lobbying for regulation on common people being able to use AI, isn't it wonderful.
There are all sorts of dangerous things where there are restrictions on what the common people can do. Prescription drugs and fully automatic machine guns are two examples. You can't open your own bank either. For anyone who really believes that AI is dangerous, having some reasonable regulations on it is logical. It's a good start on not being doomed. It goes against everyone's egalitarian/libertarian impulses, thou…
AI and machine guns aren't comparable. Machine guns will never ever decide to autonomously fire.
The shared point of both AI alarmists and advocates is that AI will be highly resistant to being subject to regulation, ultimately. As dictated by the market for it. They won't want to regulate something, assuming they could, for which its free operation underlies everyone's chance of survival against competing systems.
I only find that danger is inherent in the effort of people that casually label things as "dangerous".
I'm still exploring whether its the laziness aspect, itself, of the alarmist vocabulary in the absence of required explanation. Or whether my issue lies with the suspicion of emotional manipulation and an attempt to circumvent having to actually explain one's reasoning, using alarmist language absent required explanation.
Already, AI pessimists are well on their way to losing any window where their arguments will be heard and meaningful. We can tell by their parroting the word "dangerous" as the total substance of their arguments. Which will soon be a laughable defense. They'd better learn more words.