4 ms·
AI model rules will be as successful as any other prohibition, where outlaws will act with defacto impunity, while good people who commit sins of omission will
by motohagiography 3y ago
AI model rules will be as successful as any other prohibition, where outlaws will act with defacto impunity, while good people who commit sins of omission will be made arbitrary examples of. I'm sure there's a name for the dynamic, where policing rules of any kind are mainly enforced against people who generally abide by them, while simulataneously giving a huge arbitrage advantage to people who ignore them or are just outlaws.
There is another problem that doesn't have any good solutions yet that will be a huge part of AI governance, and that's software attestation (direct anonymous attestation). The basic problem is how does a program assert that it is an authentic instance of itself. We've been trying to solve it in security for apps, authenticators, and DRM for decades, and the solutions all seem fine until it's worth it to someone break it. I think it's probably just a poorly formed problem statement that defines itself in impossible terms, but when they can't govern AI models, they're going to try to govern which AI's can access what data and systems, and we're back to solving the same old cryptographic problems we've been working on for decades.
- yttribium 3y agoIt's called anarcho-tyranny.
- edgyquant 3y agoNo it isn’t, this is just a weird, contradictory, mix of political terms.
- yttribium 3y agohttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarcho-tyranny https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarcho-tyranny
- rudyfink 3y agoTo save others the trip, the link simply states the term is a "[c]oordinative compound of anarcho- + tyranny." The link also adds that the term was coined by Samuel Francis, a columnist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Francis_(writer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Francis_(writer)). Digging deeper, I found this essay Mr. Francis wrote where he explains the term he coined in 1992: https://web.archive.org/web/20060928023136/http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/2005/April2005/0405Francis.html https://web.archive.org/web/20060928023136/http://www.chroni... . I'd offer this quote of a long sentence as Mr. Francis's tl;dr of his term: "What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny."
- motohagiography 3y agoI've always thought anarcho-tyranny was a dumb neologism made up by people who hadn't read "The Origins of Totalitariansm," or anything else with historical accuracy by Arendt, even her "ideology and terror" essay. The thing its professors are still sounding out already has a canonical playbook.
- RandomLensman 3y agoWhy have any prohibitions on anything then? Will only help outlaws and criminals, no? Outlawing slavery, for example, only working against good people who commit sins of omission?
- ses1984 3y agoYou need to have prohibitions, they just need to be thought out carefully so they have the intended effect.
- pixl97 3y agoThe difficulty here is you have to attempt to predict the path of least harm, which many times is only discovered in hindsight. There will never be 100% compliance in anything. Which forward path has the best social impact with the least social costs is the question.
- HKH2 3y ago> Outlawing slavery, for example, only working against good people who commit sins of omission? Yes. So much so that you are led to believe that people don't still practice slavery today.
- RandomLensman 3y agoI didn't say anything about current forms of slavery, did I? But curious, do you have an example of good people "accidentally" having slaves and being prosecuted for that?
- gadflyinyoureye 3y agoBeing prosecuted? No.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vorpalhex 3y ago
- boostiq 3y agoYep, what you're describing is the "Bootleggers and Baptists" problem.
- motohagiography 3y agoFound it, thank you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
- cle 3y agoIt sounds similar to Gresham's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law).
- throw__away7391 3y agoThere's a strong tendency to step up policing on people you can control when others that can't be controlled act out.
- erichocean 3y ago> I'm sure there's a name for the dynamic Anarcho-tyranny: laws are enforced primarily on the law-abiding (tyranny), and ignored mainly for the lawless (anarchy).