AI as Normal Technology
knightcolumbia.org
AI as Normal Technology
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: AI as Normal Technology
#2"We view AI as a tool that we can and should remain in control of, and we argue that this goal does not require drastic policy interventions"
If you read the EU AI act, you'll see it's not really about AI at all, but about quality assurance of business processes that are scaled. (Look at pharma, where GMP rules about QA apply equally to people pipetting and making single-patient doses as it does to mass production of ibuprofen - those rules are eerily similar to the quality system prescribed by the AI act.)
Will a think piece like this be used to argue that regulation is bad, no matter how benificial to the citizenry, because the regulation has 'AI' in the name, because the policy impedes someone who shouts 'AI' as a buzzword, or just because it was introduced in the present in which AI exists? Yes.
Re: AI as Normal Technology
#3"We view AI as a tool that we can and should remain in control of, and we argue that this goal does not require drastic policy interventions" If you read the EU AI act, you'll see it's not really about AI at all, but about quality assurance of business processes that are scaled. (Look at pharma, where GMP rules about QA apply equally to people pipetting and making single-patient doses as it does to mass production of…
I appreciate the concern, but we have a whole section on policy where we are very concrete about our recommendations, and we explicitly disavow any broadly anti-regulatory argument or agenda.
The "drastic" policy interventions that that sentence refers to are ideas like banning open-source or open-weight AI — those explicitly motivated by perceived superintelligence risks.
Re: AI as Normal Technology
#4AI won’t become “normal technology” until the open source versions are more powerful than the closed ones. Just like Linux is the “best” kernel out there, and that doesn’t prevent other kernels to be proprietary (but that doesn’t matter because they are not better than Linux).
Imagine for a moment what would happen if suddenly one company “buys” the Linux kernel, and suddenly you need to pay per the number of processes you run in your machine. Awful.
Re: AI as Normal Technology
#5AI won’t become “normal technology” until the open source versions are more powerful than the closed ones. Just like Linux is the “best” kernel out there, and that doesn’t prevent other kernels to be proprietary (but that doesn’t matter because they are not better than Linux). Imagine for a moment what would happen if suddenly one company “buys” the Linux kernel, and suddenly you need to pay per the number of process…
I don't think that's a hard requirement.
Spreadsheets for example became normal technology long before we had a good open source one. And arguably we still don't have an open source one that's more powerful than the closed source ones.
Re: AI as Normal Technology
#6I think seeing the world in current times but hoping for more advancements is the best way. I see what there is now as a tool that is useful, I hope and sometimes even assume it will improve, but that does not help me now so what is the point in thinking about that? I am a programmer, not a philosopher.
And of course there is no viable path at this moment to make AIs actually smart so he, we use it and know the issues.
Re: AI as Normal Technology
#7AI won’t become “normal technology” until the open source versions are more powerful than the closed ones. Just like Linux is the “best” kernel out there, and that doesn’t prevent other kernels to be proprietary (but that doesn’t matter because they are not better than Linux). Imagine for a moment what would happen if suddenly one company “buys” the Linux kernel, and suddenly you need to pay per the number of process…
I don't think that's a hard requirement. Spreadsheets for example became normal technology long before we had a good open source one. And arguably we still don't have an open source one that's more powerful than the closed source ones.
I agree with you. I think OP’s point becomes more valid if you limit the discussion to tools used while developing/maintaining software, as opposed to tools used by a wider audience.
I don’t fully believe that either, but I see where the point would come from.
Re: AI as Normal Technology
#8"We view AI as a tool that we can and should remain in control of, and we argue that this goal does not require drastic policy interventions" If you read the EU AI act, you'll see it's not really about AI at all, but about quality assurance of business processes that are scaled. (Look at pharma, where GMP rules about QA apply equally to people pipetting and making single-patient doses as it does to mass production of…
I appreciate the concern, but we have a whole section on policy where we are very concrete about our recommendations, and we explicitly disavow any broadly anti-regulatory argument or agenda. The "drastic" policy interventions that that sentence refers to are ideas like banning open-source or open-weight AI — those explicitly motivated by perceived superintelligence risks.
The assumption of status quo or equilibrium with technology that is already growing faster than we can keep up with seems irrational to me.
Or, put another way:
Re: AI as Normal Technology
#9AI won’t become “normal technology” until the open source versions are more powerful than the closed ones. Just like Linux is the “best” kernel out there, and that doesn’t prevent other kernels to be proprietary (but that doesn’t matter because they are not better than Linux). Imagine for a moment what would happen if suddenly one company “buys” the Linux kernel, and suddenly you need to pay per the number of process…
Linux isn't the "best" OS - on platforms that are not servers, Linux (and open source OSes) are in the minority
Re: AI as Normal Technology
#10AI won’t become “normal technology” until the open source versions are more powerful than the closed ones. Just like Linux is the “best” kernel out there, and that doesn’t prevent other kernels to be proprietary (but that doesn’t matter because they are not better than Linux). Imagine for a moment what would happen if suddenly one company “buys” the Linux kernel, and suddenly you need to pay per the number of process…
Linux isn't the "best" OS - on platforms that are not servers, Linux (and open source OSes) are in the minority
> Linux is the “best” kernel
> Linux isn’t the “best” OS
kernel != OS.
kernel makes the OS possible. and the linux kernel makes it possible for a lot of linux OSes to exist.
also… android?