4 ms·

I like how states are introducing more AI bills. Not all bills are created equal. Are those bills going to benefit society at large or cater to special and corp

I like how states are introducing more AI bills. Not all bills are created equal. Are those bills going to benefit society at large or cater to special and corporate interests?

dantheman 4y ago
We need less laws not more; these laws will hamper progress and favor special interests.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mikem170 4y ago
  > We need less laws not more; these laws will hamper progress and favor special interests. Who needs less laws? Do AI companies need less laws? Retail businesses? The police? Or the general public? How come? By "less laws" do you mean we should pick one law for everyone, or do you mean we shouldn't have laws about this stuff at all? What do you mean by progress? New technology? An increase in personal income? Gross national happiness? Stock market returns? Who are the special interests being favored by these local AI laws? FAANG? People who don't want to be tracked? Stalkers? School systems? Were you thinking of some specific local AI laws when you wrote your comment? It's my impression that there are a variety of AI related local laws out there. It's a trendy new technology, ripe for profit. There's new power to grab. Many people are wary. Even more are unaware. Without any detail I can't tell anything about your position on this, if you are against local facial recognition bans or in favor of nationwide minority report tracking systems, etc.
jfengel 4y ago
Welcome to the "laboratory of the states". Where national and international organizations have to comply with dozens of different rule sets, serving thousands of different interests. It sounds like a dumb idea, but when you really think about it, it's a moronic idea.
- mikem170 4y ago
  > Welcome to the "laboratory of the states". Where national and international organizations have to comply with dozens of different rule sets, serving thousands of different interests. Are you advocating for one of the following: (or something else?) 1) no new laws are passed, so national and international organizations can operate with new technology unimpeded, even if laws are behind the times 2) national laws are passed instead of local laws, even though there might not be agreement on what these laws should be for a new and developing situation I've often thought that the "laboratory of the states" is a good approach to new issues. Ideally consensus eventually develops, perhaps leading to federal laws (following agreed upon procedures). Or should we go the other direction and have a one world government, because one size fits all? If states can't pass their own laws, why should nations be allowed to do so? We'll just have one group of leaders make decisions for everyone on the planet and we'll all be better off, especially large companies that don't want to bother trying to bribe so many different congresses and parliaments and statehouses and city councils, etc. /s I admit to being dismayed by how often I hear that we should defer to the best interests of national and international organizations, as if bigger is automatically better.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Part of my objection to the "laboratory of the states" is that we don't learn anything from 50 bad laws. I suppose we learn 50 ways not to do it, but that's not really narrowing it down. Companies don't have the resources to bribe local legislators; they also lack the resources to educate them. And part is that the Internet crosses state boundaries too efficiently. As you note, national boundaries aren't all that much less porous, but there is at least some national control even in countries without a Great Firewall. States simply lack any tools for implementing Internet regulation. Either everybody ends up following the most restrictive rules, or everybody ignores all of the state rules until a national framework is established (as was done with sales taxes). Of course all of that is just pointing out what's wrong, without suggesting a better solution. This particular comment was really about a much bigger issue: state laws being used abusively, to restrict individual freedom. This is a bigger political issue in the US, independent of "AI". Setting aside my fist-shaking, you did ask if I had thoughts on the right thing to do. And unfortunately, the best I can come up with is this: any regulations will be outdated even if they could somehow be thoughtfully considered. And I haven't yet seen anything that actively needs to be regulated. Regulations are written in blood, and there hasn't been any blood yet. There will be, I'm certain, but I'm equally certain that it will happen no matter what regulations are passed, at any level. Actually, there has been blood. An AI talked somebody into killing themselves. But I don't think there is any regulation that is going to solve that shy of a permanent ban, and I don't think that's going to be considered. So much as I hate to say this, I'm afraid we're going to have to white-knuckle our way through this for a while.
michaelbrave 4y ago
At this stage I just assume most AI laws being passed are red flag laws similar to how when cars were new places passed laws about people having to walk and to wave flags ahead of cars to warn that a car was coming. In 20 years most of those laws coming into being now will likely be looked at as ridiculous.

I like how states are introducing more AI bills. Not all bills are created equal. Are those bills going to benefit society at large or cater to special and corporate interests?

dantheman 4y ago

We need less laws not more; these laws will hamper progress and favor special interests.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mikem170 4y ago
> We need less laws not more; these laws will hamper progress and favor special interests. Who needs less laws? Do AI companies need less laws? Retail businesses? The police? Or the general public? How come? By "less laws" do you mean we should pick one law for everyone, or do you mean we shouldn't have laws about this stuff at all? What do you mean by progress? New technology? An increase in personal income? Gross national happiness? Stock market returns? Who are the special interests being favored by these local AI laws? FAANG? People who don't want to be tracked? Stalkers? School systems? Were you thinking of some specific local AI laws when you wrote your comment? It's my impression that there are a variety of AI related local laws out there. It's a trendy new technology, ripe for profit. There's new power to grab. Many people are wary. Even more are unaware. Without any detail I can't tell anything about your position on this, if you are against local facial recognition bans or in favor of nationwide minority report tracking systems, etc.

jfengel 4y ago

Welcome to the "laboratory of the states". Where national and international organizations have to comply with dozens of different rule sets, serving thousands of different interests. It sounds like a dumb idea, but when you really think about it, it's a moronic idea.

mikem170 4y ago
> Welcome to the "laboratory of the states". Where national and international organizations have to comply with dozens of different rule sets, serving thousands of different interests. Are you advocating for one of the following: (or something else?) 1) no new laws are passed, so national and international organizations can operate with new technology unimpeded, even if laws are behind the times 2) national laws are passed instead of local laws, even though there might not be agreement on what these laws should be for a new and developing situation I've often thought that the "laboratory of the states" is a good approach to new issues. Ideally consensus eventually develops, perhaps leading to federal laws (following agreed upon procedures). Or should we go the other direction and have a one world government, because one size fits all? If states can't pass their own laws, why should nations be allowed to do so? We'll just have one group of leaders make decisions for everyone on the planet and we'll all be better off, especially large companies that don't want to bother trying to bribe so many different congresses and parliaments and statehouses and city councils, etc. /s I admit to being dismayed by how often I hear that we should defer to the best interests of national and international organizations, as if bigger is automatically better.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Part of my objection to the "laboratory of the states" is that we don't learn anything from 50 bad laws. I suppose we learn 50 ways not to do it, but that's not really narrowing it down. Companies don't have the resources to bribe local legislators; they also lack the resources to educate them. And part is that the Internet crosses state boundaries too efficiently. As you note, national boundaries aren't all that much less porous, but there is at least some national control even in countries without a Great Firewall. States simply lack any tools for implementing Internet regulation. Either everybody ends up following the most restrictive rules, or everybody ignores all of the state rules until a national framework is established (as was done with sales taxes). Of course all of that is just pointing out what's wrong, without suggesting a better solution. This particular comment was really about a much bigger issue: state laws being used abusively, to restrict individual freedom. This is a bigger political issue in the US, independent of "AI". Setting aside my fist-shaking, you did ask if I had thoughts on the right thing to do. And unfortunately, the best I can come up with is this: any regulations will be outdated even if they could somehow be thoughtfully considered. And I haven't yet seen anything that actively needs to be regulated. Regulations are written in blood, and there hasn't been any blood yet. There will be, I'm certain, but I'm equally certain that it will happen no matter what regulations are passed, at any level. Actually, there has been blood. An AI talked somebody into killing themselves. But I don't think there is any regulation that is going to solve that shy of a permanent ban, and I don't think that's going to be considered. So much as I hate to say this, I'm afraid we're going to have to white-knuckle our way through this for a while.

michaelbrave 4y ago

At this stage I just assume most AI laws being passed are red flag laws similar to how when cars were new places passed laws about people having to walk and to wave flags ahead of cars to warn that a car was coming. In 20 years most of those laws coming into being now will likely be looked at as ridiculous.