14 ms·

The written testimony didn't say "ban", but it did stress fairly complex regulation. "First, it is vital that AI companies–especially those working on the most

by tyingq 3y ago

The written testimony didn't say "ban", but it did stress fairly complex regulation. "First, it is vital that AI companies–especially those working on the most powerful models–adhere to an appropriate set of safety requirements, including internal and external testing prior to release and publication of evaluation results. To ensure this, the U.S. government should consider a combination of licensing or registration requirements for development and release of AI models above a crucial threshold of capabilities, alongside incentives for full compliance with these requirement" https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-05-16%20-%20Bio%20&%20Testimony%20-%20Altman.pdf https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-05-16%20...

ben_w 3y ago
> The written testimony didn't say "ban", but it did stress fairly complex regulation You feel that quotation justifies the adjective "complex"?
- tyingq 3y ago
  I didn't mean "complex" in some sort of flippant, derogatory way. The language is suggesting regulation with active government involvement and oversight (licensing, for example). In the range of regulations in the software world, that would be on the far right end. ITAR, for example, requires licensing. People regularly describe the process as "complex".
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Hmm. While I don't doubt that ITAR is especially complex, following legislation is pretty common as a basic requirement in software development — say GDPR, or tax rules, or COPPA, etc. — it really doesn't seem to me that this is pushing all that hard for anything specific and detailed enough to even justify the claim that they're calling for a specific level of complexity of legislation.
    - tyingq 3y ago
      Yeah, I'm not trying to argue that what's being proposed is bad, just trying to clarify what he said. The licensing part does make it more like ITAR and less like GDPR, HIPPA, etc. Those sorts of laws don't have active government activity to certify and license beforehand, though there are 3rd party orgs that will do that sort of thing if you want.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > Yeah, I'm not trying to argue that what's being proposed is bad, just trying to clarify what he said. Ah, fair enough then; it seemed to me like you were saying it was excessive and bad.

by tyingq 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago

> The written testimony didn't say "ban", but it did stress fairly complex regulation You feel that quotation justifies the adjective "complex"?

tyingq 3y ago
I didn't mean "complex" in some sort of flippant, derogatory way. The language is suggesting regulation with active government involvement and oversight (licensing, for example). In the range of regulations in the software world, that would be on the far right end. ITAR, for example, requires licensing. People regularly describe the process as "complex".
- ben_w 3y ago
  Hmm. While I don't doubt that ITAR is especially complex, following legislation is pretty common as a basic requirement in software development — say GDPR, or tax rules, or COPPA, etc. — it really doesn't seem to me that this is pushing all that hard for anything specific and detailed enough to even justify the claim that they're calling for a specific level of complexity of legislation.
  - tyingq 3y ago
    Yeah, I'm not trying to argue that what's being proposed is bad, just trying to clarify what he said. The licensing part does make it more like ITAR and less like GDPR, HIPPA, etc. Those sorts of laws don't have active government activity to certify and license beforehand, though there are 3rd party orgs that will do that sort of thing if you want.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Yeah, I'm not trying to argue that what's being proposed is bad, just trying to clarify what he said. Ah, fair enough then; it seemed to me like you were saying it was excessive and bad.