4 ms·

In this article, the FTC has warned businesses to consider the potential harm their synthetic media or generative AI products could cause before offering them t

In this article, the FTC has warned businesses to consider the potential harm their synthetic media or generative AI products could cause before offering them to the market. These recommendations given by the FTC seem to be targeted towards moral people who don't need this advice in the first place. Bad actors who are intentionally using AI tools to cause harm are unlikely to adhere to these guidelines.

p1necone 4y ago
There's a lot of people out there that actually don't have the imagination to work out how what they're building could be misused. But they probably won't listen to these recommendations either.
vineyardmike 4y ago
This isn’t just a moral plea. The FTC is also warning businesses that they could face fines for selling access to tools (like LLMs) that can be used to deceive if they don’t take sufficient actions to protect against misuse. Eg. > If you decide to make or offer a product like that, take all reasonable precautions before it hits the market. The FTC has sued businesses that disseminated potentially harmful technologies without taking reasonable measures to prevent consumer injury.
- cookiengineer 4y ago
  I'll bite and I'm playing the devil's advocate here. The FTC wants to establish AI oversight and control without the legal foundational framework of laws for it. Gun control doesn't work, so why should AI control?
  - everydayentropy 4y ago
    I'll raise you. The FTC is not only stifling innovation by strong-arming companies which produce these tools to limit their capabilities. They're potentially running afoul of the first amendment by imposing restrictions on IP and thus speech. Can go a step further and consider the 1A protections of generative output.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    I'll bite on this stupidity. Fraud mitigation is not quite the same as "oversight and control". "Gun control doesn't work" as a blanket statement is ridiculous. It hasn't been meaningfully tried in the USA, but it works just fine almost everywhere else. When the US did have any limited gun control at all e.g. (Federal Assault Weapons Ban) it did have limited positive results. Finally, guns are a distraction, your argument is of the form "rat control doesn't work, why would tiger control?" Well, because, uh, rats and tigers differ quite lot? But not nearly as much as guns and AI do.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> These recommendations given by the FTC seem to be targeted towards moral people who don’t need this advice in the first place. They are not. They are targeted toward amoral people, and their lawyers, who do need this advice, and more to the point, need to know that the FTC is actively engaged in this area. Anytime an agency with enforcement authority issues recommendations like this, it comes with a big implicit “…or we may cause you to regret your decision not to.”
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

p1necone 4y ago

There's a lot of people out there that actually don't have the imagination to work out how what they're building could be misused. But they probably won't listen to these recommendations either.

vineyardmike 4y ago

This isn’t just a moral plea. The FTC is also warning businesses that they could face fines for selling access to tools (like LLMs) that can be used to deceive if they don’t take sufficient actions to protect against misuse. Eg. > If you decide to make or offer a product like that, take all reasonable precautions before it hits the market. The FTC has sued businesses that disseminated potentially harmful technologies without taking reasonable measures to prevent consumer injury.

cookiengineer 4y ago
I'll bite and I'm playing the devil's advocate here. The FTC wants to establish AI oversight and control without the legal foundational framework of laws for it. Gun control doesn't work, so why should AI control?
- everydayentropy 4y ago
  I'll raise you. The FTC is not only stifling innovation by strong-arming companies which produce these tools to limit their capabilities. They're potentially running afoul of the first amendment by imposing restrictions on IP and thus speech. Can go a step further and consider the 1A protections of generative output.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  I'll bite on this stupidity. Fraud mitigation is not quite the same as "oversight and control". "Gun control doesn't work" as a blanket statement is ridiculous. It hasn't been meaningfully tried in the USA, but it works just fine almost everywhere else. When the US did have any limited gun control at all e.g. (Federal Assault Weapons Ban) it did have limited positive results. Finally, guns are a distraction, your argument is of the form "rat control doesn't work, why would tiger control?" Well, because, uh, rats and tigers differ quite lot? But not nearly as much as guns and AI do.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> These recommendations given by the FTC seem to be targeted towards moral people who don’t need this advice in the first place. They are not. They are targeted toward amoral people, and their lawyers, who do need this advice, and more to the point, need to know that the FTC is actively engaged in this area. Anytime an agency with enforcement authority issues recommendations like this, it comes with a big implicit “…or we may cause you to regret your decision not to.”

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]