3 ms·

> The first section is a decent summary. I read the first section and it doesn't seem to support your claim. In particular, it claims they have a mandate to p

> The first section is a decent summary. I read the first section and it doesn't seem to support your claim. In particular, it claims they have a mandate to protect consumers and links to another wiki entry on that topic. Within that wiki entry protection against misleading statements is mentioned as an aspect of protection of consumers. This seems to refute your claim of overreach, because in the blog post related to guidance to companies the tone which is consistently struck again and again is that companies should not make misleading statements about AI capabilities. This is complete alignment with their mandate according to the link which you claimed was a decent summary. It also in alignment with the rest of the wiki, which covers topics like false advertising. > Blog posts making casual threats about AI claims is a long way from appropriate. There are places for formality, and the law is one of them. The use of sequences of characters in digital spaces for the purposes of communication is not inherently inappropriate. This sequence of characters is on guidance for companies and requests they do not lie or make false claims about capabilities. This relates to their mandate, because they have a mandate to protect consumers from misleading statements. For example, lies about capabilities or false statements about capabilities made unknowingly under the presumption that models were more effective than they are. > There are serious people quitting the FTC over current leadership, claiming they engaged in behavior that is wildly overstepping their legal authority. Can you link to one of these people who are so serious they have quit making the claim that the FTC shouldn't provide guidance to companies via their government website at a URL under https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance for the purpose of discouraging companies from misleading consumers regarding the capabilities of their AI models?

danielmarkbruce 4y ago
The first point was just pointing to a summary of their purpose, because the comment above had asked about their purpose. It wasn't in support of any claim - to be abundantly clear, the FTC is supposed to be regulating deceptive practice in business. The second was a statement that an informal blog post threatening citizens is inappropriate, and that the FTC has been accused by by insiders of engaging in inappropriate behavior on several fronts. Two FTC commissioners resigned recently (one making strong claims of illegal and inappropriate behavior in a WSJ oped), and the FTC's recent case against Meta was seen as an overstep by the relevant court.
- JoshCole 4y ago
  Thank you! I appreciate the abundance of clarity. It corrected a misconception I had about what you were saying.

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

The first point was just pointing to a summary of their purpose, because the comment above had asked about their purpose. It wasn't in support of any claim - to be abundantly clear, the FTC is supposed to be regulating deceptive practice in business. The second was a statement that an informal blog post threatening citizens is inappropriate, and that the FTC has been accused by by insiders of engaging in inappropriate behavior on several fronts. Two FTC commissioners resigned recently (one making strong claims of illegal and inappropriate behavior in a WSJ oped), and the FTC's recent case against Meta was seen as an overstep by the relevant court.

JoshCole 4y ago
Thank you! I appreciate the abundance of clarity. It corrected a misconception I had about what you were saying.