Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
marginalrevolution.com
Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
#2[dead]
Re: Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
#3"If, back in the 70s, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak had to guarantee that their computers would not be used for serious crimes, would they have been willing to sign with potential jail time on the line? Would they have even bothered to found Apple?"
back in the 70s computer crime was not technically possible or even really feasible in the way we see it today. we didnt have an internet until the 80s.
what we have with AI is wholesale development, integration, and execution in our everyday lives across numerous platforms and services. its used in bill pay, litigation, even war. we absolutely do need legislation to protect and secure regular people from it.
this feels like a classic case of having your cake and eat it too. Either AI is a very powerful tool for humanity and thus would naturally require a regulatory framework around it to ensure its proper use and application, or its a buzzword hyped up by SEO's and marketing teams to make people think a handful of big companies that ran out of steam 20 years ago still have the potential to innovate stuff.
Re: Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
#4Hopefully this fails, its idiotically restrictive. Every argument like this was also used against the open internet & encryption back in the day. Bill's like this are going to allow China and other adversarial nations to leapfrog the west in the long run. Open source Ai won't stop, it'll just move to places like UAE. And good luck trying to restrict individuals from using it in the US, code is protected speech.
Re: Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
#5"If, back in the 70s, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak had to guarantee that their computers would not be used for serious crimes, would they have been willing to sign with potential jail time on the line? Would they have even bothered to found Apple?" back in the 70s computer crime was not technically possible or even really feasible in the way we see it today. we didnt have an internet until the 80s. what we have with…
With the introduction of VisiCalc in 1979 on the Apple II, Apple opened itself up as a business tool that accountants could use to do the books on. An accountant could then use a computer in service of them embezzling a serious amount of money from their employer. Should Apple be held accountable for that?
Re: Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
#6"If, back in the 70s, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak had to guarantee that their computers would not be used for serious crimes, would they have been willing to sign with potential jail time on the line? Would they have even bothered to found Apple?" back in the 70s computer crime was not technically possible or even really feasible in the way we see it today. we didnt have an internet until the 80s. what we have with…
> back in the 70s computer crime was not technically possible
Computers have been used for payroll processing and banking since at least the 1960s.
Re: Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
#7"If, back in the 70s, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak had to guarantee that their computers would not be used for serious crimes, would they have been willing to sign with potential jail time on the line? Would they have even bothered to found Apple?" back in the 70s computer crime was not technically possible or even really feasible in the way we see it today. we didnt have an internet until the 80s. what we have with…
With the introduction of VisiCalc in 1979 on the Apple II, Apple opened itself up as a business tool that accountants could use to do the books on. An accountant could then use a computer in service of them embezzling a serious amount of money from their employer. Should Apple be held accountable for that?
> Should Apple be held accountable for that?
You could ask the same thing about gun manufacturers and shootings. This is a totally normative, political question.
And before you start moving the goalposts: an eye opening experience for me was considering that while you can dismiss an individual’s claims of “harms” as imaginary, what about a huge group of people? Specifically, if the authors unionized (they did) and they say that AI training on their work harms them (they do), does that not make in “real,” in a special way, the same special way that a law that comes into being via a popular vote is more “real” compared to a law that is made by fiat by a dictator? I am just trying to open your mind past these really basic sentiments and gotchas.
No matter what, AI developers must grapple with popular opinions about AI.
Re: Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
#8"If, back in the 70s, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak had to guarantee that their computers would not be used for serious crimes, would they have been willing to sign with potential jail time on the line? Would they have even bothered to found Apple?" back in the 70s computer crime was not technically possible or even really feasible in the way we see it today. we didnt have an internet until the 80s. what we have with…
With the introduction of VisiCalc in 1979 on the Apple II, Apple opened itself up as a business tool that accountants could use to do the books on. An accountant could then use a computer in service of them embezzling a serious amount of money from their employer. Should Apple be held accountable for that?
> An accountant could then use a computer in service of them embezzling a serious amount of money from their employer. Should Apple be held accountable for that?
You joke, as if we didn't do exactly this -- regulate accountants and accounting software. (GAAP, DFARS, SOX, PCI DSS, etc)
And we did the same thing with say, Auto Manufacturers and automobiles (FMVSS and CAFE via NHTSA)
Re: Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
#9[deleted]
Re: Dean Ball on the new California AI bill
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the introduction of VisiCalc in 1979 on the Apple II, Apple opened itself up as a business tool that accountants could use to do the books on. An accountant could then use a computer in service of them embezzling a serious amount of money from their employer. Should Apple be held accountable for that?
> An accountant could then use a computer in service of them embezzling a serious amount of money from their employer. Should Apple be held accountable for that? You joke, as if we didn't do exactly this -- regulate accountants and accounting software. (GAAP, DFARS, SOX, PCI DSS, etc) And we did the same thing with say, Auto Manufacturers and automobiles (FMVSS and CAFE via NHTSA)
[deleted]