4 ms·

I don't see AI as particularly powerful or risky on its own, but if you believe that then might as well leave who can acquire it to policy decisions and not ven

I don't see AI as particularly powerful or risky on its own, but if you believe that then might as well leave who can acquire it to policy decisions and not vendors. We don't let manufacturers decide who can buy dangerous things in a lot of cases - so pretty normal to have laws and regulations.

bhouston 3y ago
The ones we limit are quite specific and generally are specifically dangerous - like guns, etc. Many dual use technologies, including computing devices, including personal as well as IoT, can be used for a lot of bad things because they are general purpose. And we generally do not limit them at all. I think that LLMs fall into dual-use category where they are mostly used for good but because they are general purpose can be used for all sorts of things.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  We do actually police dual use things if the other use is deemed dangerous enough. I don't see LLMs as particularly dangerous, so would not put them in that category.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    LLMs at this point are creeping closer to that edge, at least in the western world. If for example you were the Chinese government you may already see LLMs as highly dangerous to your plans of social stability, hence make a lot of rules now on their policing.
    - FiniteField 3y ago
      I think if anything it's the other way. For the Chinese system and other "traditional authoritarian" regimes in which power flows from the top down fairly straightforwardly, LLMs are just another form of speech that is pretty openly cracked down on. The West's "crown jewel" is its democracy, in which power supposedly flows up from the consensus of the people, and cheap AI bots have the possibility of tipping the scales of consensus. That's the idealistic view anyway. A more cynical one might be that in the West, the flow of power from the top down is obfuscated by filtering it through the media and other institutions, who manufacture public consensus, and LLMs are liable to disrupt this system in a way those in power can't predict right now.
- dv_dt 3y ago
  The tech industry regulates email spam regularly - not to a prefect degree but to a much better state than throwing up your hands and doing nothing. And it’s not just filtering incoming spam, spam abusive accounts are regularly removed from service providers.
  - earthboundkid 3y ago
    The CAN SPAM Act didn't "can spam" (spammers don't care that they are breaking the law) but it did successfully make it so that all the legitimate commercial emails you get have an unsubscribe link at the bottom. It's important to recognize where government regulation can help (the unsubscribe links are great!) and where it has limited effect (if you're selling fake boner pills, you don't care about breaking some other law).
- gmerc 3y ago
  We are asking for knives to be sold dull specifically because people could hurt others with them, chefs be damned.
Retric 3y ago
Quite a lot of mildly dangerous things are up to the discretion of the seller. Bartenders cutting people off is one well known example. It’s not necessarily a legal requirement, but sellers can have morals just like anyone else.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Of course, but then that includes the decision that the danger is low or acceptable for that kind of approach. That decision isn't usually up to the vendor, though.
- velosol 3y ago
  It's not always a legal requirement but sometimes it is: https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/bartenders-duty-cut-off-service-intoxicated-patrons/ https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/bartenders-duty-cut-off-se...
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  I have no special expertise in the area, but my understanding is that while it's not generally a crime to serve alcohol to someone who's clearly had too much, it can be grounds for suspending or revoking an establishment's liquor license in many jurisdictions (under e.g. a rule requiring that they "exercise reasonable care" to serve alcohol safely).
  - hollerith 3y ago
    Not to mention the risk of getting sued.
- iso1631 3y ago
  In my jurisdiction it's illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk, or to serve alcohol to someone if you know they are going to give it to someone under 18. However if I as a 50 year old, go and buy alcohol from the store, the store has no right to get me to sign a civil contract saying I can't give that win to my 15 year old son, something that's perfectly legal where I live. Nor can they get me to sign a civil contract saying I wont give it to my 3 year old son, something which is not legal in my area.

bhouston 3y ago

The ones we limit are quite specific and generally are specifically dangerous - like guns, etc. Many dual use technologies, including computing devices, including personal as well as IoT, can be used for a lot of bad things because they are general purpose. And we generally do not limit them at all. I think that LLMs fall into dual-use category where they are mostly used for good but because they are general purpose can be used for all sorts of things.

RandomLensman 3y ago
We do actually police dual use things if the other use is deemed dangerous enough. I don't see LLMs as particularly dangerous, so would not put them in that category.
- pixl97 3y ago
  LLMs at this point are creeping closer to that edge, at least in the western world. If for example you were the Chinese government you may already see LLMs as highly dangerous to your plans of social stability, hence make a lot of rules now on their policing.
  - FiniteField 3y ago
    I think if anything it's the other way. For the Chinese system and other "traditional authoritarian" regimes in which power flows from the top down fairly straightforwardly, LLMs are just another form of speech that is pretty openly cracked down on. The West's "crown jewel" is its democracy, in which power supposedly flows up from the consensus of the people, and cheap AI bots have the possibility of tipping the scales of consensus. That's the idealistic view anyway. A more cynical one might be that in the West, the flow of power from the top down is obfuscated by filtering it through the media and other institutions, who manufacture public consensus, and LLMs are liable to disrupt this system in a way those in power can't predict right now.
dv_dt 3y ago
The tech industry regulates email spam regularly - not to a prefect degree but to a much better state than throwing up your hands and doing nothing. And it’s not just filtering incoming spam, spam abusive accounts are regularly removed from service providers.
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  The CAN SPAM Act didn't "can spam" (spammers don't care that they are breaking the law) but it did successfully make it so that all the legitimate commercial emails you get have an unsubscribe link at the bottom. It's important to recognize where government regulation can help (the unsubscribe links are great!) and where it has limited effect (if you're selling fake boner pills, you don't care about breaking some other law).
gmerc 3y ago
We are asking for knives to be sold dull specifically because people could hurt others with them, chefs be damned.

Retric 3y ago

Quite a lot of mildly dangerous things are up to the discretion of the seller. Bartenders cutting people off is one well known example. It’s not necessarily a legal requirement, but sellers can have morals just like anyone else.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Of course, but then that includes the decision that the danger is low or acceptable for that kind of approach. That decision isn't usually up to the vendor, though.
velosol 3y ago
It's not always a legal requirement but sometimes it is: https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/bartenders-duty-cut-off-service-intoxicated-patrons/ https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/bartenders-duty-cut-off-se...
0xcde4c3db 3y ago
I have no special expertise in the area, but my understanding is that while it's not generally a crime to serve alcohol to someone who's clearly had too much, it can be grounds for suspending or revoking an establishment's liquor license in many jurisdictions (under e.g. a rule requiring that they "exercise reasonable care" to serve alcohol safely).
- hollerith 3y ago
  Not to mention the risk of getting sued.
iso1631 3y ago
In my jurisdiction it's illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk, or to serve alcohol to someone if you know they are going to give it to someone under 18. However if I as a 50 year old, go and buy alcohol from the store, the store has no right to get me to sign a civil contract saying I can't give that win to my 15 year old son, something that's perfectly legal where I live. Nor can they get me to sign a civil contract saying I wont give it to my 3 year old son, something which is not legal in my area.