4 ms·

I see AI ending up under strict regulation so that all AI generated content has to be stored somewhere read only. Other highly regulated companies and law enfor

by rcarr 4y ago

I see AI ending up under strict regulation so that all AI generated content has to be stored somewhere read only. Other highly regulated companies and law enforcement agencies will then have access to this AI web of content and will be able to search it to see if any submitted content, be that an essay or a forum post or whatever, is AI generated and to what extent. The public will still be able to access AI tools via the regulated companies but the scope of damage the individual can inflict will be limited. People caught using AIs outside of the state sanctioned companies will get harsh jail sentences to deter anyone from trying the same. I don’t think there’s any other way to avoid chaos. I doubt anyone is going to be able to come up with a reliable algorithm to detect AI content. We’re literally going to have to just store everything these AIs produce in plain text and search it when needed.

sebzim4500 4y ago
While I can understand the argument that this might be a good idea, I don't believe there is a chance of it actually happening. So many countries would have to work together to do something which is so obviously detrimental to their own economy.
- rcarr 4y ago
  I get what you're saying but if they think it's a Mutually Assured Destruction style scenario if it's allowed to run rampant they might end up changing their minds.
menzoic 4y ago
This wouldn't work because there's no way to enforce that all AI generated content gets stored in a single place.
- rcarr 4y ago
  The enforcement would be a very lengthy prison sentence for the people not complying e.g hacking state secrets level prison sentence. I think this is where it will ultimately end up if it ends up causing complete carnage.
pjc50 4y ago
I don't see a globally coordinated anti-AI effort happening, let alone resolving the free speech and privacy implications of such a measure. We're going to get weaponised AI because that's what humans want to build.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I was on a support "chat" the other day and strongly felt that soon, it'll be a legal requirement to differentiate when you are interacting with a scripted bot and a real human.
survirtual 4y ago
This is a very dangerous and ill-conceived idea, and not only is extremely unlikely to happen, but must not happen. AI access must be open and unfettered. If it is closed or restricted, then a closed or restricted class of human will form that has privileged AI access. If you think the wealth gap is bad now, wait until a subset of humans have AI-augmented intelligence and capabilities that are unrestricted. Your post is the type of solutions I see readily in governing functionally and it is the thinking of people who really need to spend more time in reality and understanding human nature / nature / observe the universe. It comes from a place of “we have this problem, wouldn’t it be nice if it was this way?” but ignores all history and reality of human nature, because of fear and a need to control the lives and destinies of other people in order to feel safe. It is extremely dangerous in approach. Freedom and open access will have miraculous results in lifting the wealth of everything. We can deal with the dark sides as they come, but we cannot as a people allow the dark side to dictate our policy.
- rcarr 4y ago
  > AI access must be open and unfettered. If it is closed or restricted, then a closed or restricted class of human will form that has privileged AI access. If you think the wealth gap is bad now, wait until a subset of humans have AI-augmented intelligence and capabilities that are unrestricted. In the proposed solution, everyone would be able to access AI, but there would only be a few companies able to offer the service. Theoretically, unlimited companies would be able to operate the service so long as they recorded the results to the central pool and complied with the legal frameworks. > Your post is the type of solutions I see readily in governing functionally and it is the thinking of people who really need to spend more time in reality and understanding human nature / nature / observe the universe. It comes from a place of “we have this problem, wouldn’t it be nice if it was this way?” but ignores all history and reality of human nature, because of fear and a need to control the lives and destinies of other people in order to feel safe. I strongly disagree with this. It comes from a place of realism about human nature. The reason pantheistic gods are 'immortal' is because they represent parts of human nature that never die, at least not on our time scale. And there is a reason why you will always find a god of deception who is bringing about untold misery, or in Loki's case, armageddon. And also note, that the gods representing the role of leaders such as Zeus and Odin, are also prolific deceivers. There is always, always, always, some cunt who will weaponise or exploit a system for their own personal gain to the detriment of everyone and everything else. The only reason there is not mass warfare on the planet right now is because we invented the nuclear bomb and the two major opposing powers of the world allowed each other to build up an arsenal of weapons so big that if they used them, it would mean death to everyone. AI is the intellectual equivalent of a nuclear bomb. We've already had Cambridge Analytica and more recently the Team Jorge hackers meddling in elections and that was before AI really took off. And we've had Neil Clarke come out and say that spam submissions for his site are rising at an exponential rate. And we are literally only at the beginning of what this thing can and will do. Hopefully we'll be able to use it for good the same way we harness nuclear energy for fuel. But if we mainly use it for ill, then god help us.

by rcarr 4y ago

sebzim4500 4y ago

While I can understand the argument that this might be a good idea, I don't believe there is a chance of it actually happening. So many countries would have to work together to do something which is so obviously detrimental to their own economy.

rcarr 4y ago
I get what you're saying but if they think it's a Mutually Assured Destruction style scenario if it's allowed to run rampant they might end up changing their minds.

menzoic 4y ago

This wouldn't work because there's no way to enforce that all AI generated content gets stored in a single place.

rcarr 4y ago
The enforcement would be a very lengthy prison sentence for the people not complying e.g hacking state secrets level prison sentence. I think this is where it will ultimately end up if it ends up causing complete carnage.

pjc50 4y ago

I don't see a globally coordinated anti-AI effort happening, let alone resolving the free speech and privacy implications of such a measure. We're going to get weaponised AI because that's what humans want to build.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I was on a support "chat" the other day and strongly felt that soon, it'll be a legal requirement to differentiate when you are interacting with a scripted bot and a real human.

survirtual 4y ago

This is a very dangerous and ill-conceived idea, and not only is extremely unlikely to happen, but must not happen. AI access must be open and unfettered. If it is closed or restricted, then a closed or restricted class of human will form that has privileged AI access. If you think the wealth gap is bad now, wait until a subset of humans have AI-augmented intelligence and capabilities that are unrestricted. Your post is the type of solutions I see readily in governing functionally and it is the thinking of people who really need to spend more time in reality and understanding human nature / nature / observe the universe. It comes from a place of “we have this problem, wouldn’t it be nice if it was this way?” but ignores all history and reality of human nature, because of fear and a need to control the lives and destinies of other people in order to feel safe. It is extremely dangerous in approach. Freedom and open access will have miraculous results in lifting the wealth of everything. We can deal with the dark sides as they come, but we cannot as a people allow the dark side to dictate our policy.

rcarr 4y ago
> AI access must be open and unfettered. If it is closed or restricted, then a closed or restricted class of human will form that has privileged AI access. If you think the wealth gap is bad now, wait until a subset of humans have AI-augmented intelligence and capabilities that are unrestricted. In the proposed solution, everyone would be able to access AI, but there would only be a few companies able to offer the service. Theoretically, unlimited companies would be able to operate the service so long as they recorded the results to the central pool and complied with the legal frameworks. > Your post is the type of solutions I see readily in governing functionally and it is the thinking of people who really need to spend more time in reality and understanding human nature / nature / observe the universe. It comes from a place of “we have this problem, wouldn’t it be nice if it was this way?” but ignores all history and reality of human nature, because of fear and a need to control the lives and destinies of other people in order to feel safe. I strongly disagree with this. It comes from a place of realism about human nature. The reason pantheistic gods are 'immortal' is because they represent parts of human nature that never die, at least not on our time scale. And there is a reason why you will always find a god of deception who is bringing about untold misery, or in Loki's case, armageddon. And also note, that the gods representing the role of leaders such as Zeus and Odin, are also prolific deceivers. There is always, always, always, some cunt who will weaponise or exploit a system for their own personal gain to the detriment of everyone and everything else. The only reason there is not mass warfare on the planet right now is because we invented the nuclear bomb and the two major opposing powers of the world allowed each other to build up an arsenal of weapons so big that if they used them, it would mean death to everyone. AI is the intellectual equivalent of a nuclear bomb. We've already had Cambridge Analytica and more recently the Team Jorge hackers meddling in elections and that was before AI really took off. And we've had Neil Clarke come out and say that spam submissions for his site are rising at an exponential rate. And we are literally only at the beginning of what this thing can and will do. Hopefully we'll be able to use it for good the same way we harness nuclear energy for fuel. But if we mainly use it for ill, then god help us.