4 ms·

I'm skeptical of legislators legislating in domains they're not knowledgeable in, while being advised by the players with the upper-hand in the field financiall

I'm skeptical of legislators legislating in domains they're not knowledgeable in, while being advised by the players with the upper-hand in the field financially.

culi 3y ago
This is really just government investment. Government investment gave us the iPhone basically. I mean look at it: GPS — government technology the internet — a government technology ai voice assistants — Apple literally hired the head of this research straight from DARPA after DARPA had released its work to the public touchscreens — DARPA accelerometers — DARPA speech recognition — more DARPA and MIT tech One of the only non-gov't technologies core to it is microprocessors which was made by Bell Labs. But even that was only possible because of a gov't mandated monopoly on Bell Labs and legislation that forced it to invest in research. Basically what public universities are The government is innovative. It's just not good at taking credit for it I mean just think about it for a second. Why on earth would a private company ever invest heavily in R&D and then release that knowledge to the public so everyone (including their competitors) can benefit. All our major technological innovations have come from the public sector and that should not at all be surprising if you just think about the incentive structures Edit: if you're interested in this topic, economist Mariana Mazzucato has a whole book on debunking public vs. private sector myths. It's quite good and draws on a lot of data and evidence to make its case and show how absurd some of our assumptions really are: https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state
Alupis 3y ago
> I'm skeptical of legislators legislating in domains they're not knowledgeable in The 2A folks would like to have a word with you... In all seriousness - everyone assumes what they hear/read is 100% accurate and factual until it's about a topic they know something about. Then... we know the truth. Why would some average legislator be any more qualified to regulate AI than Firearms? The answer is - they aren't.
- dabluecaboose 3y ago
  > In all seriousness - everyone assumes what they hear/read is 100% accurate and factual until it's about a topic they know something about. Then... we know the truth. And to bring it back around to AI, I've noticed a lot of people taking ChatGPT's responses as gospel but if you ask it about something you're knowledgeable in you can very easily catch it making stuff up and passing it off as fact.
  - __loam 3y ago
    It should be reassuring for you to learn that students, who have no idea what they're talking about, are embracing this technology.
ncr100 3y ago
It would be nice if there were some standards around legislation to make it so that legislation required unbiased input.

I'm skeptical of legislators legislating in domains they're not knowledgeable in, while being advised by the players with the upper-hand in the field financially.

culi 3y ago

This is really just government investment. Government investment gave us the iPhone basically. I mean look at it: GPS — government technology the internet — a government technology ai voice assistants — Apple literally hired the head of this research straight from DARPA after DARPA had released its work to the public touchscreens — DARPA accelerometers — DARPA speech recognition — more DARPA and MIT tech One of the only non-gov't technologies core to it is microprocessors which was made by Bell Labs. But even that was only possible because of a gov't mandated monopoly on Bell Labs and legislation that forced it to invest in research. Basically what public universities are The government is innovative. It's just not good at taking credit for it I mean just think about it for a second. Why on earth would a private company ever invest heavily in R&D and then release that knowledge to the public so everyone (including their competitors) can benefit. All our major technological innovations have come from the public sector and that should not at all be surprising if you just think about the incentive structures Edit: if you're interested in this topic, economist Mariana Mazzucato has a whole book on debunking public vs. private sector myths. It's quite good and draws on a lot of data and evidence to make its case and show how absurd some of our assumptions really are: https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state

Alupis 3y ago

> I'm skeptical of legislators legislating in domains they're not knowledgeable in The 2A folks would like to have a word with you... In all seriousness - everyone assumes what they hear/read is 100% accurate and factual until it's about a topic they know something about. Then... we know the truth. Why would some average legislator be any more qualified to regulate AI than Firearms? The answer is - they aren't.

dabluecaboose 3y ago
> In all seriousness - everyone assumes what they hear/read is 100% accurate and factual until it's about a topic they know something about. Then... we know the truth. And to bring it back around to AI, I've noticed a lot of people taking ChatGPT's responses as gospel but if you ask it about something you're knowledgeable in you can very easily catch it making stuff up and passing it off as fact.
- __loam 3y ago
  It should be reassuring for you to learn that students, who have no idea what they're talking about, are embracing this technology.

ncr100 3y ago

It would be nice if there were some standards around legislation to make it so that legislation required unbiased input.