5 ms·

> If the AI regulations are reasonable and AI companies can't operate, the technology just isn't ready for wide-spread adoption yet. Conversely if the AI syste

> If the AI regulations are reasonable and AI companies can't operate, the technology just isn't ready for wide-spread adoption yet. Conversely if the AI system is reasonable, but the regulations are making them illegal, then the blame is on the regulations. There is a trade-off between potential benefits and potential harm, and it's not immediately clear to me, who is in the better position to find it: the AI companies or the legislators. The first are biased because they want to sell their products, but the second have worse understanding of the technology and are IMO on average too over-protective.

themitigating 3y ago
So it's subjective right? The balance. Since a company is usually harmed by increased regulation their opinion is biased. But there's no oppposite to this. Governments don't benefit if companies leave and in fact they lose out. This also includes the population (jobs etc) that means the opinion of the government isn't biased.
- jamincan 3y ago
  > Since a company is usually harmed by increased regulation their opinion is biased. I know this is the prevailing point of view in business, but is it actually true? How many bank failures would have been avoided if US banking regulations hadn't been slackened so much?
  - sharemywin 3y ago
    When the government covers your loses and even let's you take bonuses for fucking up and causing a recission why wouldn't you think regulations slows you down. how many guns would get sold if the government didn't created laws that protects the industry from liability. or section 230 which shields websites from the rent seeking of the cable companies but allows them to rent seek advertisers.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      Common sense is what protects gun manufacturers from liability. If you run someone over with your car, Ford is not liable either.
  - Tangurena2 3y ago
    > How many bank failures would have been avoided if US banking regulations hadn't been slackened so much? Most of the failures after 2000 would have been prevented. All of the 2008 financial crisis was caused by removing regulation. Prior to Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 [0], several states ruled that credit default swaps were insurance and thus regulated CDS as insurance. Some states ruled that CDS were gambling and regulated it as gambling. The CFMA basically said "credit default swaps are now a federal issue and it will be regulated at the federal level" and set up a poorly funded agency that had no teeth until after the bailouts in 2008. During the 1920s, many banks got involved in both commercial banking (taking deposits and making loans) as well as investment banking (arranging IPOs). In 1933, the Glass-Steagal Act [1] said that banks may do one or the other, but cannot do both. In 1999, Glass-Steagal was later repealed by GLBA [2] as CitiCorp was doing both (due to mergers) while daring the regulators to do anything about it. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernizatio... 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bl...
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Regulatory moats can be pretty powerful - not sure regulations always harm all companies.
soco 3y ago
The regulation is meant to protect the EU citizens which couldn't care less about the financial incentives of a US company or their hype du jour. If hypothetically no AI can be created with respecting the citizens, what should the choice be, block or accept Skynet? (I said "hypothetically")
- xiphias2 3y ago
  As an EU citizen I think it's about joining SkyNet or falling behind in productivity. I prefer joining SkyNet.
  - ttlsa 3y ago
    If, hypothetically, a SkyNet like AI actually existed, how much damage to humanity would you be ok with as long as productivity and quality of life went up went up for those who were spared? Let's assume that you and your loved ones are among those who have been guaranteed safety by this AI. I am sorry if the tone comes across as snarky. Not my intention. Genuinely curious.
    - xiphias2 3y ago
      My comment was about if it's starting to exist, EU regulatation won't stop its power and influence. If everyone uses ChatSkyNet for programming (or even ChatGPT-4), but EU is not allowed, EU will simply lose its competitiveness in creating products.
      - blibble 3y ago
        > My comment was about if it's starting to exist, EU regulatation won't stop its power and influence. it... might? it possibly existing in the future is not a good reason to lay down and just surrender control of world governance to ChatGPT today
      - revelio 3y ago
        Sadly, the EU has already lost that competitiveness through many other similar regulatory situations. The real risk is not competitiveness in creating products, that's a lost battle already :( The real risk is losing competitiveness in even being able to work for the American companies that are creating products.
blibble 3y ago
> Conversely if the AI system is reasonable, but the regulations are making them illegal, then the blame is on the regulations. have you read the EU's proposed approach to regulating AI? https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory... it seems to be an extremely reasonable approach to me, if anything a little too lax the problem for OpenAI is its products can't easily be segregated into the different risk buckets... and they want ChatGPT wired into the high risk areas as that's where the profit is
- eterevsky 3y ago
  I think the proposal is reasonable provided ChatGPT is classified as moderate risk. One thing I don't quite understand is how they are going to ensure that AI-generated text is always marked as such. When the text is generated in the chatbot, the fact that it is AI-generated is clear, but the user is free to copy-paste it anywhere. There is no good way to watermark plaintext.
  - NumberWangMan 3y ago
    Individuals will always be able to do this, but it might be enough if it's illegal and a bit of extra effort. You don't need to eliminate 100% of AI-generated spam, just make it risky and unprofitable enough that it's not a common practice, and have people call out those who seem to be doing it. I'm not sure it's possible, but it seems worth trying. And if someone is operating a troll farm in another country, this won't help.

themitigating 3y ago

So it's subjective right? The balance. Since a company is usually harmed by increased regulation their opinion is biased. But there's no oppposite to this. Governments don't benefit if companies leave and in fact they lose out. This also includes the population (jobs etc) that means the opinion of the government isn't biased.

jamincan 3y ago
> Since a company is usually harmed by increased regulation their opinion is biased. I know this is the prevailing point of view in business, but is it actually true? How many bank failures would have been avoided if US banking regulations hadn't been slackened so much?
- sharemywin 3y ago
  When the government covers your loses and even let's you take bonuses for fucking up and causing a recission why wouldn't you think regulations slows you down. how many guns would get sold if the government didn't created laws that protects the industry from liability. or section 230 which shields websites from the rent seeking of the cable companies but allows them to rent seek advertisers.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Common sense is what protects gun manufacturers from liability. If you run someone over with your car, Ford is not liable either.
- Tangurena2 3y ago
  > How many bank failures would have been avoided if US banking regulations hadn't been slackened so much? Most of the failures after 2000 would have been prevented. All of the 2008 financial crisis was caused by removing regulation. Prior to Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 [0], several states ruled that credit default swaps were insurance and thus regulated CDS as insurance. Some states ruled that CDS were gambling and regulated it as gambling. The CFMA basically said "credit default swaps are now a federal issue and it will be regulated at the federal level" and set up a poorly funded agency that had no teeth until after the bailouts in 2008. During the 1920s, many banks got involved in both commercial banking (taking deposits and making loans) as well as investment banking (arranging IPOs). In 1933, the Glass-Steagal Act [1] said that banks may do one or the other, but cannot do both. In 1999, Glass-Steagal was later repealed by GLBA [2] as CitiCorp was doing both (due to mergers) while daring the regulators to do anything about it. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernizatio... 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bl...
RandomLensman 3y ago
Regulatory moats can be pretty powerful - not sure regulations always harm all companies.

soco 3y ago

The regulation is meant to protect the EU citizens which couldn't care less about the financial incentives of a US company or their hype du jour. If hypothetically no AI can be created with respecting the citizens, what should the choice be, block or accept Skynet? (I said "hypothetically")

xiphias2 3y ago
As an EU citizen I think it's about joining SkyNet or falling behind in productivity. I prefer joining SkyNet.
- ttlsa 3y ago
  If, hypothetically, a SkyNet like AI actually existed, how much damage to humanity would you be ok with as long as productivity and quality of life went up went up for those who were spared? Let's assume that you and your loved ones are among those who have been guaranteed safety by this AI. I am sorry if the tone comes across as snarky. Not my intention. Genuinely curious.
  - xiphias2 3y ago
    My comment was about if it's starting to exist, EU regulatation won't stop its power and influence. If everyone uses ChatSkyNet for programming (or even ChatGPT-4), but EU is not allowed, EU will simply lose its competitiveness in creating products.
    - blibble 3y ago
      > My comment was about if it's starting to exist, EU regulatation won't stop its power and influence. it... might? it possibly existing in the future is not a good reason to lay down and just surrender control of world governance to ChatGPT today
    - revelio 3y ago
      Sadly, the EU has already lost that competitiveness through many other similar regulatory situations. The real risk is not competitiveness in creating products, that's a lost battle already :( The real risk is losing competitiveness in even being able to work for the American companies that are creating products.

blibble 3y ago

> Conversely if the AI system is reasonable, but the regulations are making them illegal, then the blame is on the regulations. have you read the EU's proposed approach to regulating AI? https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory... it seems to be an extremely reasonable approach to me, if anything a little too lax the problem for OpenAI is its products can't easily be segregated into the different risk buckets... and they want ChatGPT wired into the high risk areas as that's where the profit is

eterevsky 3y ago
I think the proposal is reasonable provided ChatGPT is classified as moderate risk. One thing I don't quite understand is how they are going to ensure that AI-generated text is always marked as such. When the text is generated in the chatbot, the fact that it is AI-generated is clear, but the user is free to copy-paste it anywhere. There is no good way to watermark plaintext.
- NumberWangMan 3y ago
  Individuals will always be able to do this, but it might be enough if it's illegal and a bit of extra effort. You don't need to eliminate 100% of AI-generated spam, just make it risky and unprofitable enough that it's not a common practice, and have people call out those who seem to be doing it. I'm not sure it's possible, but it seems worth trying. And if someone is operating a troll farm in another country, this won't help.