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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by jamilton »

eastbound wrote: post #589
ok_dad wrote: post #484

I just want to also chime in here and say this is what I expected from the folks who currently control this tech: to leverage political connections to legally cement themselves in the market as the leaders and disallow the common plebian from using the world-changing tech. It enrages me SO MUCH that people act like this. We could be colonizing planets, but instead a few people want to keep all the wealth and power fo…

I don’t understand what their goal is; The law can only reach within the USA (and EU). Are they not afraid of terrorist competitors? It’s like, it will be allowed to build LLMs everywhere except USA. Sounds like USA would shoot itself in the foot.

I don’t understand this argument. It seems to presume that if the US has no regulation then the danger from other countries is lessened more than the danger from within is raised. This does not seem obviously true.

If I wanted AI to be regulated everywhere and I was Sam Altman, I’d probably start with convincing the US.

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

#912

Post by dreamcompiler »

brookst wrote: post #680
nonethewiser wrote: post #555

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 recent history of tech CEOs advocating for regulations only they can obey has become so blatant that any tech CEO who advocates for regulation should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

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

#914

Post by RecycledEle »

When I taught at a business school, our textbooks told us that once a company had a large lead in a field, they should ask for regulation. Regulations build walls to protect their lead by increasing the cost to compete against them.

I believe this is what OpenAI is doing, and it makes me sad as a teacher.

AI is the greatest tool for equity and social justice in history. Any poor person with Internet access can learn (almost) anything from ChatGPT (http://chat.openai.com)

A bright student trapped in a garbage school where the kid to his right is stoned and the kid to his left is looking up porn on a phone can learn from personalized AI tutors.

While some complain that AI will take our jobs, they are ignoring the effect of competition. Humans will become smarter with AI tutors. Humans will become more capable with AI assistants. With AI an individual can compete with a large corporation. It reminds me of the early days of the World Wide Web and the "Online, nobody knows you are a dog" memes.

I hope the best hope many bright and poor kids have is not taken away to protect the power bases of the rich and powerful. They deserve a chance.

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

#915

Post by 13of40 »

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…

> revenge porn

I would assert that just as I have the right to pull out a sheet of paper and write the most vile, libelous thing on it I can imagine, I have the right to use AI to put anyone's face on any body, naked or not. The crime comes from using it for fraud. Take gasoline for another example. Gasoline is powerful stuff. You can use it to immolate yourself or burn down your neighbor's house. You can make Molitov cocktails and throw them at nuns. But we don't ban it, or saturate it with fire retardants, because it has a ton of other utility, and we can just make those outlying things illegal. Besides, five years from now, nobody's going to believe a damned thing they watch, listen to, or read.

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

#916

Post by 8note »

jlawson wrote: post #754
AlexandrB wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Woke is a specific ideology that it places every individual into a strict hierarchy of oppressor/oppressed according to group racial and sexual identity. It rose to prominence in American culture from around 2012, starting in universities. It revolves around a set of core concepts including privilege, marginalization, oppression, and equity. Now that we've defined what woke is, I hope we can move on from this 'you ca…

The best definition I can think of is "things that are common sense for black americans to be safe in white dominated america"

Yours has important inaccuracies, for example, it's not an ideology, let alone a specific one. There's definitely no specification, only a gut feeling of "I know it when I see it"

The most obvious problem with your definition is that Woke is an adjective and not a noun. It's a property of a statement or idea, not an idea in and of itself

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

#917

Post by dragonwriter »

RecycledEle wrote: post #914

When I taught at a business school, our textbooks told us that once a company had a large lead in a field, they should ask for regulation. Regulations build walls to protect their lead by increasing the cost to compete against them. I believe this is what OpenAI is doing, and it makes me sad as a teacher. AI is the greatest tool for equity and social justice in history. Any poor person with Internet access can learn…

> AI is the greatest tool for equity and social justice in history.

Maybe it has that potential, but as actually applied its actually not, in net, a force in that direction.

> While some complain that AI will take our jobs, they are ignoring the effect of competition.

No, they are just paying attention to the actual effects of capitalism, not the ideal effects of optimal competition.

> Humans will become more capable with AI assistants. With AI an individual can compete with a large corporation.

Not if the large corporation has the resources to run far more powerful AI, has proprietary control of the best AI, etc…

> I hope the best hope many bright and poor kids have is not taken away to protect the power bases of the rich and powerful.

That’s what capitalism does. Why would this be any different?

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

#918

Post by 8note »

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…

I don't think ai regulation is the right tool to combat revenge porn?

The right one is to grant people rights over their likeness, so you could use something more like copyright law

Even if it's a real recording, you should still have control over it

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

#919

Post by vivegi »

It is too early to regulate.

Let them first enforce existing regulation around the blatant unauthorized use of data (such as the creative output of artists, programmers etc.,) without explicit consent. For example, just like how the US Library of Congress receives a copy of each print publication for archival and reference purposes, Congress can enable the archival / storage of datasets for the purposes of AI research. Willing participants can deposit copies of their data sets (or URLs to source) and it would do more for AI research as a public good. The licensing terms could protect the rights of those who own copyrights on the datasets. There can even be commercial licenses enabled (already happens for legal documents such as court judgments ets.,).

If US Congress regulates too soon to constrain rather than enable, the tech companies would just setup shop in other jurisdictions where such regulatory hurdles don't exist.

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

#920

Post by varelse »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #912
brookst wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 recent history of tech CEOs advocating for regulations only they can obey has become so blatant that any tech CEO who advocates for regulation should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

[dead]
Post reply on HN