7 ms·

Why is everyone in a hurry to regulate AI? I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM. Besides "AI" is largely a marketing term, most sof

Why is everyone in a hurry to regulate AI? I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM. Besides "AI" is largely a marketing term, most software has "AI" elements and that has been the case for a while now, this thing has "unintended consequences" written all over it.

CamperBob2 3y ago
They're regulators. That's what they do. That's all they do.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- seydor 3y ago
  No , it wasn't always like that. The EU has gone on overdrive lately but that's not because EU citizens asked for it. This is mostly brussels people regulating popular subjects because ... they want to be associated with things that are popular. There is really little else to explain what's happening in the EU in the past 5 years. As a citizen I am concerned by this "tyrranny from Brussels" because my opinion never seems to have mattered nor were EU citizens informed before the fact.
bitL 3y ago
Power grab and preservation. This will be quickly approved to preserve existing players and power status quo (lawyers, managers and doctors don't want to be automated away).
- felipemnoa 3y ago
  If an AI comes along that is able to do their job better than them then they will not have a say in that. No matter how many regulations the government puts up. Is like trying to regulate cars to save the horse shoe industry. And if doctors can be automated away so can software developers. I guess in the long term we are all obsolete.
  - UncleEntity 3y ago
    > Is like trying to regulate cars to save the horse shoe industry. Which was quite common in the early days of automobiles. There also wasn’t quite the massive bureaucratic regulatory system back then. The big difference is these AI doctors will need to be certified by, wait for it… current doctors. Or, at the very least, the training data (haven’t RTFA so that’s the example being thrown around the comments) will need to be certified. Judging by how the EU countries deal with labor issues I think there’s little chance robots will replace human doctors for a long, long time.
    - felipemnoa 3y ago
      If it gives an edge to any country to do this, they will. It does not have to be the EU or USA. China comes to mind.
pembrook 3y ago
Because there’s no better marketing for a probabilistic (dumb) language model than the idea that it’s so powerful it needs to be regulated. Just as Steve Jobs used to say when the media was constantly stoking fears about the power of personal computers in the 1980s—“you can just throw it out the window.” Yet, he simultaneously took advantage of that media hysteria when signing off on what is considered the best commercial of all time- “1984 won’t be like 1984 because Apple” Essentially what OpenAI is doing right now in Washington (ie. stoking the fear and also selling the solution). The more things change, the more they stay the same.
bitshiftfaced 3y ago
Isn't European tech regulation basically a billion dollar income source for them now?
hammyhavoc 3y ago
> I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM. Off the top of my head: https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-commits-suicide-following-exchanges-with-chatgpt https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-com... https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/06/defamed-by-chatgpt-my-own-bizarre-experience-with-artificiality-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/06/defamed-by-chatgpt-my-...
- duringmath 3y ago
  I don't think you should base regulations on these particular instances, the defamation one is describing a bug, it happens in every piece of software and I don't even want to address the first one.
  - ranguna 3y ago
    Changing the goalpost?
spixy 3y ago
> I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM. Not yet. Thats why there is this Act. Using AI in law enforcement or doing a surgery could cause some harm. LLMs like ChatGPT are in "low risk category" for which there should be no mandatory obligations.

CamperBob2 3y ago

They're regulators. That's what they do. That's all they do.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seydor 3y ago
No , it wasn't always like that. The EU has gone on overdrive lately but that's not because EU citizens asked for it. This is mostly brussels people regulating popular subjects because ... they want to be associated with things that are popular. There is really little else to explain what's happening in the EU in the past 5 years. As a citizen I am concerned by this "tyrranny from Brussels" because my opinion never seems to have mattered nor were EU citizens informed before the fact.

bitL 3y ago

Power grab and preservation. This will be quickly approved to preserve existing players and power status quo (lawyers, managers and doctors don't want to be automated away).

felipemnoa 3y ago
If an AI comes along that is able to do their job better than them then they will not have a say in that. No matter how many regulations the government puts up. Is like trying to regulate cars to save the horse shoe industry. And if doctors can be automated away so can software developers. I guess in the long term we are all obsolete.
- UncleEntity 3y ago
  > Is like trying to regulate cars to save the horse shoe industry. Which was quite common in the early days of automobiles. There also wasn’t quite the massive bureaucratic regulatory system back then. The big difference is these AI doctors will need to be certified by, wait for it… current doctors. Or, at the very least, the training data (haven’t RTFA so that’s the example being thrown around the comments) will need to be certified. Judging by how the EU countries deal with labor issues I think there’s little chance robots will replace human doctors for a long, long time.
  - felipemnoa 3y ago
    If it gives an edge to any country to do this, they will. It does not have to be the EU or USA. China comes to mind.

pembrook 3y ago

Because there’s no better marketing for a probabilistic (dumb) language model than the idea that it’s so powerful it needs to be regulated. Just as Steve Jobs used to say when the media was constantly stoking fears about the power of personal computers in the 1980s—“you can just throw it out the window.” Yet, he simultaneously took advantage of that media hysteria when signing off on what is considered the best commercial of all time- “1984 won’t be like 1984 because Apple” Essentially what OpenAI is doing right now in Washington (ie. stoking the fear and also selling the solution). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago

Isn't European tech regulation basically a billion dollar income source for them now?

hammyhavoc 3y ago

> I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM. Off the top of my head: https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-commits-suicide-following-exchanges-with-chatgpt https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-com... https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/06/defamed-by-chatgpt-my-own-bizarre-experience-with-artificiality-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/06/defamed-by-chatgpt-my-...

duringmath 3y ago
I don't think you should base regulations on these particular instances, the defamation one is describing a bug, it happens in every piece of software and I don't even want to address the first one.
- ranguna 3y ago
  Changing the goalpost?

spixy 3y ago

> I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM. Not yet. Thats why there is this Act. Using AI in law enforcement or doing a surgery could cause some harm. LLMs like ChatGPT are in "low risk category" for which there should be no mandatory obligations.