6 ms·

Please don't fall for these dumb gimmicks. Regulating emerging tech only benefits the incumbents. On a side note, that guy used to be a state attorney general

Please don't fall for these dumb gimmicks. Regulating emerging tech only benefits the incumbents. On a side note, that guy used to be a state attorney general before he became a senator which is not an uncommon trajectory unfortunately, his kind (prosecutors) aren't equipped to formulate meaningful laws and regs they're mindset is that of banning things outright and supporting prosecution and long prison sentences to generate headlines and further their careers.

polski-g 3y ago
Its a pointless endeavor. Software is protected under the First Amendment: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...
- beerpls 3y ago
  Otoh software has been used a lot in recent years to effectively diminish the first amendment too
- dmm 3y ago
  > Software is protected under the First Amendment And if it's dangerous enough, the Second.
ethbr0 3y ago
Autonomous systems should be regulated. But we should start on the data side and not the compute/action side. The current worst excesses stem from a lack of transparency and access into data backing a given system. Meaningful data privacy & ownership reform would curtail these and still permit innovation.
- lumost 3y ago
  Counter point, there are already limited consumer protection laws with regards to algorithmic decision making in the United States. There are very few speed bumps to rolling out ChatGPT like systems for decision making - even if it makes bad decisions. It's easy to imagine that LLMs could be used to make decisions which are manifestly illegal simply by virtue of being black boxes. That being said, regulating the producer of the LLM technology seems like the wrong approach compared to regulating the outcome. OpenAI asking to block new entrants is the surest sign I've seen that they don't believe their moat is all that deep. In practical terms, Google got its initial moat because it would cost X dollars and take Y time to catch up to them. There were only 2-3 firms who could plausibly pursue this in the 2000s. The claim that AI firms will either become commoditized or that they will have to spend X billion per year in ads to maintain their edge is not unfounded.
- mathquestion 3y ago
  > Autonomous systems should be regulated. Why?
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    Because anything with potentially exponential growth is dangerous.
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    I mean, we're already seeing why. I've seen people literally state that "AI cannot be biased", after training said AI on datasets derived from biased humans. We already see computer algorithms dictating people's lives, and people having no recourse to those decisions, and corporations/institutions abdicating responsibility towards their own decisions because "computer says no".
NumberWangMan 3y ago
You sound skeptical of regulation. I think being skeptical of regulation may be a heuristic that almost always works. (1) I won't argue that the incentives for regulators aren't really messed up. But I argue that AI is different from just about any tech we've ever created because of: * its potential to destroy vast number of jobs faster than any previous kind of tech. * its ability to destroy those jobs permanently and thoroughly. To not leave any space left where humans can provide more value than machines. * its ability to vastly accelerate the development of many other kinds of technology, good and bad, and destabilize our already unstable society further. * its potential, not that far off, to eventually think, make decisions for itself, and have its own goals which may conflict with humanity. All the existential risk stuff. (1) https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that-almost-always-work https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that-almost...
taylodl 3y ago
> Regulating emerging tech only benefits the incumbents I especially think that's true when you see the incumbents going up to the Hill and advocating for an AI license.

polski-g 3y ago

Its a pointless endeavor. Software is protected under the First Amendment: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...

beerpls 3y ago
Otoh software has been used a lot in recent years to effectively diminish the first amendment too
dmm 3y ago
> Software is protected under the First Amendment And if it's dangerous enough, the Second.

ethbr0 3y ago

Autonomous systems should be regulated. But we should start on the data side and not the compute/action side. The current worst excesses stem from a lack of transparency and access into data backing a given system. Meaningful data privacy & ownership reform would curtail these and still permit innovation.

lumost 3y ago
Counter point, there are already limited consumer protection laws with regards to algorithmic decision making in the United States. There are very few speed bumps to rolling out ChatGPT like systems for decision making - even if it makes bad decisions. It's easy to imagine that LLMs could be used to make decisions which are manifestly illegal simply by virtue of being black boxes. That being said, regulating the producer of the LLM technology seems like the wrong approach compared to regulating the outcome. OpenAI asking to block new entrants is the surest sign I've seen that they don't believe their moat is all that deep. In practical terms, Google got its initial moat because it would cost X dollars and take Y time to catch up to them. There were only 2-3 firms who could plausibly pursue this in the 2000s. The claim that AI firms will either become commoditized or that they will have to spend X billion per year in ads to maintain their edge is not unfounded.
mathquestion 3y ago
> Autonomous systems should be regulated. Why?
- ethbr0 3y ago
  Because anything with potentially exponential growth is dangerous.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  I mean, we're already seeing why. I've seen people literally state that "AI cannot be biased", after training said AI on datasets derived from biased humans. We already see computer algorithms dictating people's lives, and people having no recourse to those decisions, and corporations/institutions abdicating responsibility towards their own decisions because "computer says no".

NumberWangMan 3y ago

You sound skeptical of regulation. I think being skeptical of regulation may be a heuristic that almost always works. (1) I won't argue that the incentives for regulators aren't really messed up. But I argue that AI is different from just about any tech we've ever created because of: * its potential to destroy vast number of jobs faster than any previous kind of tech. * its ability to destroy those jobs permanently and thoroughly. To not leave any space left where humans can provide more value than machines. * its ability to vastly accelerate the development of many other kinds of technology, good and bad, and destabilize our already unstable society further. * its potential, not that far off, to eventually think, make decisions for itself, and have its own goals which may conflict with humanity. All the existential risk stuff. (1) https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that-almost-always-work https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that-almost...

taylodl 3y ago

> Regulating emerging tech only benefits the incumbents I especially think that's true when you see the incumbents going up to the Hill and advocating for an AI license.