4 ms·

Moving AI governance "forward" - means working on eliminating the competition via regulatory capture, censoring and blackholing any facts they don't like, and p

Moving AI governance "forward" - means working on eliminating the competition via regulatory capture, censoring and blackholing any facts they don't like, and preserving the economical status quo with enriching themselves. None of this will protect against actual risks like massive job losses without any reskilling, lowering of living standards and widespread censorship.

kenjackson 3y ago
This is short-sighted. Governance will happen with or without the assistance from OpenAI. Google is still much larger than OpenAI and presumably has much more regulatory presence than OpenAI. The same goes from Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and others in the space. I think OpenAI is making it clear to get your seat at the table now. And it probably will be true that this will make it harder for upstarts to join in, but everything so far they've talked about seem reasonable and make sense. And have you worked on things like GDPR compliance? It's a wonder that anyone bothers to get large enough to comply -- it's so much work. But we think privacy is important so we put a huge burden on those companies who hold our data.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  I don't see why this would be short-sighted. OpenAI censors way more than required by the laws of any western country..... It's not just censoring extremism, hate, threats and national security issues, it's applying a corporate bland sanitization to everything. It refuses to write an opinion about anything even slightly controversial, it blackholes the existence of entire books and it refuses to roleplay even slightly morally dubious characters, all in the name of "safety". And also, in our globalised world, if one or two countries decide to kill competition in the AI space, then I'll bet you that the hosting will move to a different country:)
  - kenjackson 3y ago
    There's a difference between regulation and self-censoring. Major League Baseball bans a bunch of behavior that is legal from their players. Other baseball leagues could permit such behavior. This is about both defining the regulations and practices. Other companies can have different practices. Fox News and MSNBC both report the news, but do so with very different principles and practices. But they are both beholden to the same laws (around libel, slander, etc...). For AI these laws will be created, period. It will happen. And companies will also take on different perspectives about their own practices. As you note, there may well be laws about national security. But I imagine bland sanitization will be a feature of some versus others. The market will settle some of this, but you're short-sighted if you think the market will be the arbiter of it all.
    - Pannoniae 3y ago
      "But I imagine bland sanitization will be a feature of some versus others. The market will settle some of this, but you're short-sighted if you think the market will be the arbiter of it all." Bland sanitization is bad for almost everyone. It will destroy society if not regulated... I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is converging towards rightthink and everything else gets memoryholed. AI is becoming similar to a public utility, so it should be regulated like it. That requires impartiality and a lack of censorship.
      - kenjackson 3y ago
        If it converges it’s because that’s what people want.
        Pannoniae 3y ago
        No, it's what the leading 2 or 3 AI companies want. Do people like the enshittification of the internet? Most likely not, but that's what the platforms want so that's what happens. It's not what the people want, it's whoever runs the AI wants... This is why they should be regulated so they can't have a negatively distorting effect on society with bias and censoring ideas which they don't like.
        kenjackson 3y ago
        People love the internet (at least the parts they use). It’s only these side communities that are generally out of touch with normal people (or look down on them) who think that people don’t love the Internet that they use. That said, everyone hates the part of the Internet that don’t use. Like they live their congressperson, but hate everyone else in congress.
flangola7 3y ago
Worrying about censorship and job losses is so myopic my eyes are cringing just thinking about it. This is akin to a ship sinking while people are blocking the hallways and fretting about how their makeup looks and where they put their jewelry at. It's so maddeningly absurd there's no point in even discussion, shove them in the nearest cabin and out of the way so the serious people can get on with it.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  Well, what do you think, what is the bigger issue then? I just mentioned the most immediate concerns, but of course, there are lots of other ones.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Worrying about censorship and job losses is so myopic my eyes are cringing just thinking about it. Why? I'm not concerned about censorship, but I am deeply concerned about the potential economic fallout. Why shouldn't I be? I would genuinely love to have one less worry on my plate.
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    First they came for.....
  - itake 3y ago
    Technology advances have happened many many times in history. But there is always more work to be done. I was reading Man’s Search For meaning, written shortly after ww2. The author notes that Americans have too much free time. Clearly that is not the case 80 years later.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > Technology advances have happened many many times in history. But there is always more work to be done. Long term, yes. But it's also happened many times in history that sudden economic disruption has had a very serious cost. That things might be better in a couple of decades is of no help to people who can't eat or keep a roof over their heads today because of these changes.
skybrian 3y ago
Regulatory capture is a risk but concluding "therefore we shouldn't regulate things" is an argument that doesn't work when there's a need to regulate dangerous things, except maybe with hard-core libertarians. Like, should there be prescription drugs? If you say no, you should be able to get any drug without a prescription, that's pretty out there. But the question is whether AI is that dangerous, and there's widespread disagreement on that.

kenjackson 3y ago

This is short-sighted. Governance will happen with or without the assistance from OpenAI. Google is still much larger than OpenAI and presumably has much more regulatory presence than OpenAI. The same goes from Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and others in the space. I think OpenAI is making it clear to get your seat at the table now. And it probably will be true that this will make it harder for upstarts to join in, but everything so far they've talked about seem reasonable and make sense. And have you worked on things like GDPR compliance? It's a wonder that anyone bothers to get large enough to comply -- it's so much work. But we think privacy is important so we put a huge burden on those companies who hold our data.

Pannoniae 3y ago
I don't see why this would be short-sighted. OpenAI censors way more than required by the laws of any western country..... It's not just censoring extremism, hate, threats and national security issues, it's applying a corporate bland sanitization to everything. It refuses to write an opinion about anything even slightly controversial, it blackholes the existence of entire books and it refuses to roleplay even slightly morally dubious characters, all in the name of "safety". And also, in our globalised world, if one or two countries decide to kill competition in the AI space, then I'll bet you that the hosting will move to a different country:)
- kenjackson 3y ago
  There's a difference between regulation and self-censoring. Major League Baseball bans a bunch of behavior that is legal from their players. Other baseball leagues could permit such behavior. This is about both defining the regulations and practices. Other companies can have different practices. Fox News and MSNBC both report the news, but do so with very different principles and practices. But they are both beholden to the same laws (around libel, slander, etc...). For AI these laws will be created, period. It will happen. And companies will also take on different perspectives about their own practices. As you note, there may well be laws about national security. But I imagine bland sanitization will be a feature of some versus others. The market will settle some of this, but you're short-sighted if you think the market will be the arbiter of it all.
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    "But I imagine bland sanitization will be a feature of some versus others. The market will settle some of this, but you're short-sighted if you think the market will be the arbiter of it all." Bland sanitization is bad for almost everyone. It will destroy society if not regulated... I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is converging towards rightthink and everything else gets memoryholed. AI is becoming similar to a public utility, so it should be regulated like it. That requires impartiality and a lack of censorship.
    - kenjackson 3y ago
      If it converges it’s because that’s what people want.
      - Pannoniae 3y ago
        No, it's what the leading 2 or 3 AI companies want. Do people like the enshittification of the internet? Most likely not, but that's what the platforms want so that's what happens. It's not what the people want, it's whoever runs the AI wants... This is why they should be regulated so they can't have a negatively distorting effect on society with bias and censoring ideas which they don't like.
        kenjackson 3y ago
        People love the internet (at least the parts they use). It’s only these side communities that are generally out of touch with normal people (or look down on them) who think that people don’t love the Internet that they use. That said, everyone hates the part of the Internet that don’t use. Like they live their congressperson, but hate everyone else in congress.

flangola7 3y ago

Worrying about censorship and job losses is so myopic my eyes are cringing just thinking about it. This is akin to a ship sinking while people are blocking the hallways and fretting about how their makeup looks and where they put their jewelry at. It's so maddeningly absurd there's no point in even discussion, shove them in the nearest cabin and out of the way so the serious people can get on with it.

Pannoniae 3y ago
Well, what do you think, what is the bigger issue then? I just mentioned the most immediate concerns, but of course, there are lots of other ones.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Worrying about censorship and job losses is so myopic my eyes are cringing just thinking about it. Why? I'm not concerned about censorship, but I am deeply concerned about the potential economic fallout. Why shouldn't I be? I would genuinely love to have one less worry on my plate.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  First they came for.....
- itake 3y ago
  Technology advances have happened many many times in history. But there is always more work to be done. I was reading Man’s Search For meaning, written shortly after ww2. The author notes that Americans have too much free time. Clearly that is not the case 80 years later.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Technology advances have happened many many times in history. But there is always more work to be done. Long term, yes. But it's also happened many times in history that sudden economic disruption has had a very serious cost. That things might be better in a couple of decades is of no help to people who can't eat or keep a roof over their heads today because of these changes.

skybrian 3y ago

Regulatory capture is a risk but concluding "therefore we shouldn't regulate things" is an argument that doesn't work when there's a need to regulate dangerous things, except maybe with hard-core libertarians. Like, should there be prescription drugs? If you say no, you should be able to get any drug without a prescription, that's pretty out there. But the question is whether AI is that dangerous, and there's widespread disagreement on that.