4 ms·

> A decade or two of stagnation would be frustrating for those in the field but probably overall a good thing. Is a decade or two of a head start given to high

by avz 5y ago

> A decade or two of stagnation would be frustrating for those in the field but probably overall a good thing. Is a decade or two of a head start given to high-tech totalitarian regimes like China overall a good thing? > Plus I don't think this would affect research at all so not even. Limiting use of AI reduces interest of the public and young researchers and engineers, contributes to brain drain and limits availability of large datasets that are an important asset for AI development.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
>> Limiting use of AI reduces interest of the public and young researchers and engineers, contributes to brain drain and limits availability of large datasets that are an important asset for AI development. I disagree. As a senior-year PhD student, I am relieved that the EU is taking a stance on this matter and hope that others in the West will follow suit (it's probably too late for China). I am relieved because I personally have grave concerns about the uses of AI in society and have thought for some time that some kind of formal and official framework is needed. AI researchers haven't yet managed to establish such a framework, so legislators have stepped in. The framework still seems pretty "green" and like it will take a lot of development and improvement, but that a first step was made is important. So in fact you might say that having a legal framework in place makes AI research more attractive, because the student is not left to wonder about the ethics of her research on her own. As to the availability of large datasets- how do you see that this would be affected by the legislation being considered? I should also point out that the reliance on large datasets is a bug, not a feature, of the currently dominant AI techniques and that an alternative is sorely needed. If large datasets became less easily available, that would give a good incentive to researchers to go do something new, rather than throw a ton of data to an old benchmark to improve it by 0.2%.

by avz 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

>> Limiting use of AI reduces interest of the public and young researchers and engineers, contributes to brain drain and limits availability of large datasets that are an important asset for AI development. I disagree. As a senior-year PhD student, I am relieved that the EU is taking a stance on this matter and hope that others in the West will follow suit (it's probably too late for China). I am relieved because I personally have grave concerns about the uses of AI in society and have thought for some time that some kind of formal and official framework is needed. AI researchers haven't yet managed to establish such a framework, so legislators have stepped in. The framework still seems pretty "green" and like it will take a lot of development and improvement, but that a first step was made is important. So in fact you might say that having a legal framework in place makes AI research more attractive, because the student is not left to wonder about the ethics of her research on her own. As to the availability of large datasets- how do you see that this would be affected by the legislation being considered? I should also point out that the reliance on large datasets is a bug, not a feature, of the currently dominant AI techniques and that an alternative is sorely needed. If large datasets became less easily available, that would give a good incentive to researchers to go do something new, rather than throw a ton of data to an old benchmark to improve it by 0.2%.