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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> Woke is a specific ideology

No, its not.

> that it places every individual into a strict hierarchy of oppressor/oppressed according to group racial and sexual identity

Not only is that not “woke”, its not any left leaning ideology, nor is it an ideology, AFAICT, that in any meaningful sense actually exists. Its an idea that if anyone actually held it (rather than it being a right-wing projection of the left-of-their-fantasy) would be radically opposed to actual left/progressive ideas like intersectionality.

"Woke" is a state of awareness (particularly, pragmatic rather than abstract awareness) of structure/institutional racism (primarily and originally) and inequity more generally (in the newer and broader sense.) It doesn't particularly correspond to a particular normative view of how society should be, so its not an ideology (concern for it correlates historically with a variety of different ideologies, whose only really common factor is general opposition to structural racism but with lots of different normative ideals, and views of praxis of change.)

> It rose to prominence in American culture from around 2012, starting in universities.

“Woke” originated in the 1930s, and its evolutions and spread in the 2010s started in the black activist community, not universities. By the late 2010s, the political Right adopted it as a generic term for everything they oppose, basically a rhetorical drop-in for their long-time favorite of “political correctness”. Your description seems typically of attempts to try to retroactively justify the right-wing use of the term as referring to a phenomenon that is both new and real rather than an empty epithet, despite the fact that the actual use is generally in contexts of right-wing complaints that haven’t changed for about 5 decades, except literally the substitution of “woke” for “politically correct”.

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

#922

Post by myaccountonhn »

agnosticmantis wrote: post #474

I used to be very enthusiastic about the tech industry and the Silicon Valley culture before getting into it, but having worked in tech for a while I feel very demoralized and disillusioned with all the blatant lies and hypocrisy that seems central to business. I wouldn’t mind ruthless anti-competitive approaches to business as much, but the hypocrisy is really demoralizing.

I also got quite disillusioned a few times and I probably will again. What helped me regain a bit of hope again was looking at what the open source community is up to (stuff like sourcehub instead of Github for example). I get joy from moving away from big monopolistic orgs to smaller projects, it feels quite liberating. Recently I also moved away from vscode back to vim and that has been fun to even if vim requires a bit more work. There is something freeing about using a different paradigm, one that isn’t so obsessed about reach and usability but instead on expressability and growth. It reminds me of the internet I used to love rather than the one I grew to hate. Maybe that will help you a bit as well?

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

#923

Post by fuzzfactor »

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…

When Zappa testified before Congress he was extremely adamant about unsavory outcomes resulting from government control of language expression being more damaging than any unsavory language on its own.

https://societyofrock.com/in-1985-frank-zappa-is-asked-to-te...

Less fulfilling text version:

https://urbigenous.net/library/zappa.html

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

#924

Post by peripitea »

discardedrefuse wrote: post #605
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'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…

Maybe I'm naive, but it isn't clear to me that this is rent-seeking behavior by OpenAI.

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

#925

Post by bcrosby95 »

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?

Not when it comes to politics.

You'll be stuck in the muck while they're laughing their ass off all the way to the bank.

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

#926

Post by selimthegrim »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #923
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…

When Zappa testified before Congress he was extremely adamant about unsavory outcomes resulting from government control of language expression being more damaging than any unsavory language on its own. https://societyofrock.com/in-1985-frank-zappa-is-asked-to-te... Less fulfilling text version: https://urbigenous.net/library/zappa.html

I am sure he would be thrilled about Google censoring his track titles.

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

#927

Post by pavelstoev »

AI/ML is a disruptive tech with huge financial benefits. History has shown us that government regulation of disruptive technologies can often have unintended consequences and push those technologies into the shadows, where they are harder to monitor and control. For example, during the manufacturing revolution in the 19th century, many governments attempted to regulate the new factories and their working conditions, but these regulations often resulted in factories moving to countries with fewer regulations and lower costs.

Similarly, during the Prohibition era in the United States, the ban on alcohol only fueled a thriving dark market and increased criminal activity. In the case of AI, any government regulation could limit the positive financial benefits of AI technology, so there will be actors who will take advantage of that. Furthermore, regulation is unlikely to prevent malicious actors from using AI in harmful ways. Regulation could drive the development and use of AI underground, making it even harder to monitor and control. As we have seen with other emerging technologies, such as biological cloning, government regulation often lags behind the technology itself, and by the time regulations are in place, the technology has already advanced beyond their reach. The same is likely to be true for AI.

Instead of relying on government regulation, the development and use of AI should be guided by ethical principles and best practices established by the AI industry itself. This approach has been successful in other industries, such as engineering, architecture, finance and medicine, and can help ensure that AI is developed and used responsibly while still allowing for innovation and progress.

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

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

#928

Post by abeppu »

13of40 wrote: post #915
abeppu wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Molito…

I have the right to use my camera to film adult content. I do not have the right to open a theater which shows porn to any minor who pays for a ticket. It's perfectly legal for me to buy a gallon of gasoline, and bunch of finely powdered lead, and put them into the same container, creating gasoline with lead content. It is _not_ fine for me to run a filling station which sells leaded gasoline to motorists. You want to drink unpasteurized milk fresh from your cow? Cool. You want to sell unpasteurized milk to the public? Shakier ground.

I think you should continue to have the right to use whatever program to generate whatever video clip you like on your computer. That is a distinct matter from whether a commercially available video generative AI service has some obligations to guard against abusive uses. Personal freedoms are not the same as corporate freedom from regulatory burdens, no matter how hard some people will work to conflate them.

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

#929

Post by jasonm23 »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #925
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?

Not when it comes to politics. You'll be stuck in the muck while they're laughing their ass off all the way to the bank.

It doesn't even matter if "his heart is pure" ... Companies are not run that way.

We have lawyers.

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

#930

Post by fuzzfactor »

selimthegrim wrote: post #926
fuzzfactor wrote: post #923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Zappa testified before Congress he was extremely adamant about unsavory outcomes resulting from government control of language expression being more damaging than any unsavory language on its own. https://societyofrock.com/in-1985-frank-zappa-is-asked-to-te... Less fulfilling text version: https://urbigenous.net/library/zappa.html

I am sure he would be thrilled about Google censoring his track titles.

We need someone like him today to take old Fidel DeSantis down a notch or two.
Post reply on HN