4 ms·

My summary of claims: Opensource AI is too dangerous and can't be left as it is. It's scary that everyone can just create AI and we should make laws regarding t

by hau 5y ago

My summary of claims: Opensource AI is too dangerous and can't be left as it is. It's scary that everyone can just create AI and we should make laws regarding this glaring issue. Proprietary AI is more accountable, transparent and easier to fix than opensource AI. Opensource AI is more bias-prone by it's nature. No arguments presented. It's just that. Everyone can change opensource AI and add biases. Unlike companies, who are accountable and will easily fix it if something goes wrong. Tech is too powerful for simpletons to wield, we should restrict it.

akersten 5y ago
Shit like this boils my blood. Policymakers should focus on writing laws that actually help people instead of muddling around with technology they don't understand. If anyone doesn't understand just how ridiculous a proposal to regulate "AI" is, pull back the veil a tiny bit on that summary to see what the author is really saying: > Opensource math is too dangerous and can't be left as it is. It's scary that everyone can just create math and we should make laws regarding this glaring issue. Proprietary math is more accountable, transparent and easier to fix than opensource math. Opensource math is more bias-prone by it's nature. Plainly nonsense and I hope this worm doesn't get anywhere near a lawmaker's ear.
harles 5y ago
I wonder how much of this has been pushed along by incumbents in the space - they nearly always benefit from regulation as smaller companies suffer the most.
ReactiveJelly 5y ago
> Everyone can change opensource AI and add biases. I remember seeing this misconception about Linux probably 15 years ago. "How can you trust it? Anyone can change it!" It's not like Wikipedia, dad. There are people deciding what ends up in the soup. Wikipedia isn't even like Wikipedia - They enforce IP blocks, most of the pages that are vulnerable to vandalism are protected, and there are people watching pages they care about so they'll be notified if they change.
xg15 5y ago
Ok, then please explain to me who exactly will vet open-source AI projects.

by hau 5y ago

akersten 5y ago

Shit like this boils my blood. Policymakers should focus on writing laws that actually help people instead of muddling around with technology they don't understand. If anyone doesn't understand just how ridiculous a proposal to regulate "AI" is, pull back the veil a tiny bit on that summary to see what the author is really saying: > Opensource math is too dangerous and can't be left as it is. It's scary that everyone can just create math and we should make laws regarding this glaring issue. Proprietary math is more accountable, transparent and easier to fix than opensource math. Opensource math is more bias-prone by it's nature. Plainly nonsense and I hope this worm doesn't get anywhere near a lawmaker's ear.

harles 5y ago

I wonder how much of this has been pushed along by incumbents in the space - they nearly always benefit from regulation as smaller companies suffer the most.

ReactiveJelly 5y ago

> Everyone can change opensource AI and add biases. I remember seeing this misconception about Linux probably 15 years ago. "How can you trust it? Anyone can change it!" It's not like Wikipedia, dad. There are people deciding what ends up in the soup. Wikipedia isn't even like Wikipedia - They enforce IP blocks, most of the pages that are vulnerable to vandalism are protected, and there are people watching pages they care about so they'll be notified if they change.

xg15 5y ago

Ok, then please explain to me who exactly will vet open-source AI projects.