45 ms·
Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence
- RandomLensman 3y agoDoes Microsoft need to share how it is testing Excel? Some subtle bug there might do an awful lot of damage.
- halJordan 3y agoIdk if you're being serious because there's ai in excel now; in which case the answer is no. Or you're being a smarty-pants and trying to cleverly show what you think is a counter-example; in which case the answer is still no, but should probably be yes, and they only don't because it was well established before all the cyber regulation took effect, but for instance azure has many certs (including fedramp) which includes office365 which includes excel.
- RandomLensman 3y agoI am quite serious about the potential for danger of errors in Excel (without AI). Basically, I consider the focus on AI massively misplaced given the long list of real risks compared to the more hypothetical (other than general compute) risks from AI.
- Eumenes 3y agoThis kinda thing should not be legislated via executive order. Congress needs a committee and must deliberate. Sad.
- flenserboy 3y agoWhich is exactly what Congress refuses to do, because letting Caesar, I mean the President, decide things by fiat keeps them from owning the blame for bad legislation.
- Eumenes 3y agoAt least Caesar was a respectable age for leading when he died (55) ... This is interesting: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...
- nerdponx 3y agoDon't forget that life expectancies were much lower back then, and that he was assassinated. He certainly would have been happy to continue into his 80s if he could.
- frumper 3y agoIt is interesting. I would have thought executive orders were more frequently used now than in the past. Apparently that peaked 80 years ago.
- nerdponx 3y agoCongress has generally refused to seriously legislate anything other than banning lightbulbs for several presidential terms now. But in this particular example I don't think it's enough of "thing" to even consider bringing up as a bill, except maybe as a one-pager that passes unanimously.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nerdponx 3y agoThis is well within the president's powers under existing law. If Congress disagrees, they can always supersede. This isn't even close to legislating. Look at some recent Supreme Court decisions and the amount of latitude federal agencies have, if you want to see something more closely resembling legislation from outside of Congress.
- zoobab 3y ago"This kinda thing should not be legislated via executive order." Dictatorship in another form.
- nh23423fefe 3y agoThey can't regulate finance, they can't regulate AI either.
- greenhearth 3y agoUm, they can regulate finance. Ask Bernie Madoff and that crypto guy lol
- sadhorse 3y agoMadoff pulled a ponzi scheme for years, despite multiple complaints filed by third parties to the SEC. At the end the 2008 crisis brought him down, his victims lost their money and the SEC just tagged the bodies it found. Same goes for the crypto guy, did regulations stop him from defrauding billions and hurting thousands of victims?
- ben_w 3y agoNonetheless Madoff was caught, convicted, sent to prison, and died there. Regulations sure aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or have no effect.
- hellojesus 3y agoIn this case they do create moral hazards though. The regulation means investors are less likely to consider a ponzi scheme as an outcome of their investment, so they don't conduct due diligence as thoroughly. The original Ponzi was brought down by the free markets: a journalist caught wind of unbelievable returns and tracked down why.
- saturn8601 3y agoI don't see how they will enforce many of these rules on Open Source AI. Also: "Establish an advanced cybersecurity program to develop AI tools to find and fix vulnerabilities in critical software, building on the Biden-Harris Administration’s ongoing AI Cyber Challenge. Together, these efforts will harness AI’s potentially game-changing cyber capabilities to make software and networks more secure." I fear the end of pwning your own device to free it from DRM or other lockouts is coming to an end with this. We have been lucky that C++ is still used badly in many projects and that has been an achilles heel for many a manager wanting to lock things down. Now this door is closing faster with the rise of AI bug catching tools.
- flenserboy 3y agoOrders such as these don't appear out of the blue — corporate interests & political players are always consulted long before they appear, & threats to those interests such as Open Source Anything are always in their sights. This is a likely first step in a larger move to snatch strong AI tools out of the hands of the peasants before someone gets a bright idea which can upend the current order of things.
- incompatible 3y agoProbably the same way they stamped out open source cryptography in the 1990s.
- stevev 3y agoLet the regulations, antitrust lawsuits and monopolies begin!
- nerdponx 3y agoThis is a great opportunity to try to avoid the old mistakes of regulatory capture. It looks like someone is at least trying to make a nod in that direction, by supporting smaller research groups.
- sschueller 3y agoThere is no way to prevent AI from being researched on or to make it safe by government oversight because the rest of the world has places that don't care. What does work is to pass laws to not permit certain automation such as insurance claims or life and death decisions. These laws are needed even without AI as automation is already doing such things to a concerning degree like banning people due to a mistake without recourse. Is the whitehouse going to ban the use of AI in the decision making when dropping a bomb?
- vivekd 3y agoI mean isn't automating important decisions line insurance claims or life and death decisions a beneficial thing. Sure the tech isn't ready yet but I think even now AI with a human overlooking it who has the power to override the system would provide people with a better experience
- broken-kebab 3y ago>not permit certain automation such as insurance claims I don't see any problem in automation which does mistakes, humans do too. The real problem is that it's often an impenetrable wall with no way to protest, or appeal, and nobody's held accountable while victims lives are ruined. So if to pass any law in this field it should not be about banning AI, but rather about obligatory compensation for those affected by errors. Facing money loss, insurers, and banks will fix themselves
- Libcat99 3y agoAgreed, This doesn't just apply to insurance, etc, of course. Inaccessibility of support and inability to appeal automated decisions for products we use is widespread and inexcusable. This shouldn't just apply to products you pay for, either. Products like facebook and gmail shouldn't get off with inaccessible support just because they are "free" when we all know they're still making plenty of money off us.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoJust because the rest of the world has lawless areas doesn't mean we don't pass laws. If you do something that risks our national safety, or various other things, we can extradite and try you in court. They're not suggesting the banning of anything, they're requiring you make it be safe and prove how you did that. That's not unreasonable. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_Unite... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_international_defendants_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_i...
- adolph 3y agoSaid executive order was not linked to in the document.
- KoftaBob 3y agoIt hasn't been updated yet, but I believe Executive Orders are listed here for viewing: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/joe-biden/2023 https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...
- rmbyrro 3y agoWhy's there a bat flying over the white house logo?
- iinnPP 3y agoCriminals don't follow the rules. Large corps don't follow the rules. The only people this impacts are the ones you don't need it to impact. The bit about detection and authentication services is also alarming.
- gmerc 3y agoYou could say this about … every law. So clearly it’s not a useful yardstick
- iinnPP 3y agoIt's a statement of my estimated impact of the post on the development of AI. The blocking of "AI content" and the bit about authentication don't seem related to AI frankly. Detection isn't real and authentication is the government's version of an explosive wet dream.
- gs17 3y ago>The bit about detection and authentication services is also alarming. "The Department of Commerce will develop guidance for content authentication and watermarking to clearly label AI-generated content." is pretty weak sounding. I'm more annoyed that they pretend that will actually reduce fraud.
- tomohawk 3y agoIn my history book, I read where we fought a war to not have a king. In my civics class, I learned that Congress passes laws, not the President. I guess a public school education only goes so far.
- phillipcarter 3y agoYou clearly weren't paying attention in school then, because executive orders are most certainly taught in government classes.
- rmbyrro 3y agoExecutive Orders are subject to Congressional review and can be taken down by Congress. It's a power given by Congress to the President. There are contexts in which the President's ability to issue Executive Orders are really necessary. This is not against democratic principles, per se. Of course, the President can abuse this power. That's not a failure of Democracy. This is predicted. And that's also a reason (potential power abuse) why the Congress exists, not just to pass laws.
- marcinzm 3y agoAnd who is in charge of making sure those laws are executed on by the Federal Goverment? Hint: It's the President and executive orders are the President's directive on how the Federal government should execute on laws.
- nerdponx 3y agoAnd that's also literally what this is, it's the president executing the provisions of the Defense Production Act of 1950, which is not only within his power to do so, it's literally his constitutional obligation to do so.
- barney54 3y agoExecutive Orders do not have the force of law. They are essentially suggestions. Federal agencies try to follow them, but Executive Orders can’t supersede actual laws.
- numpad0 3y agoHow do any of these work when everyone is cargo-cult "programming" AI by verbally asking nicely? Effectively no one but very few up there in OpenAI et al has any understanding, let alone have controls.
- kramerger 3y agoYou realise that these random-Joe companies currently develop and sell AI products to cops, goverments and your HR department because the CTO or head of IT is incompetent and/or corrupt? You understand that already people have been denied bail because "our AI told us so", with no legal way to question that?
- epups 3y agoThis looks even more heavy-handed than the regulation from the EU so far.
- marcinzm 3y agoI'm honestly curious, how so? From what I can tell the only thing which isn't a "we'll research this area" or "this only applies to the government" is "tell the US government how you tested your foundational models." For example, AI watermarking only applies to government communications and may be used as a standard for non-government uses but it's not require.
- patwolf 3y agoThat last one seems like a pretty big deal though. It's not just how you tested, but "other critical information" about the model. I imagine the government can deem any AI to be a "serious risk" and prevent it from being made public.
- epups 3y agoThe EU regulation is here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/202... It is also very open ended, but the US text reads like some compliance will start immediately, like sharing the results of safety tests with the government directly.
- venatiodecorus 3y agoThe way to make AI content safe is the same way to improve general network security for everyone: cryptographically signed content standards. We should be able to sign our tweets, blog posts, emails, and most network access. This would help identify and block regular bots along with AI powered automatons. Trusted orgs can maintain databases people can subscribe to for trust networks, or you can manage your own. Your key(s) can be used to sign into services directly.
- max_ 3y agoThe problem is key management & key storage. Smartphones & computers are a joke from a security standpoint. The closest solution to this problem has been what people in the crypto community have done with seed phrases & hardware wallets. But this is still too psychologically taxing for the masses. Untill that problem of intuitive, simple & secure key management is solved. Cryptography as a general tool for personal authentication will not be practical.
- venatiodecorus 3y agoI mean my Yubikey is really easy to use, on computers and with my phone. Any broad change like this is going to require an adoption phase but I think its do-able.
- colordrops 3y agoI wouldn't be surprised if things got so bad that people would get used to the rough edges as the alternative is worse.
- px43 3y ago> But this is still too psychologically taxing for the masses. Literally requires the exact same cognitive load as using keys to start your car. The problem is that so many people got comfortable delegating all their financial and data risk to third parties, and those third parties aren't excited about giving up that power.
- 3y ago
- rmbyrro 3y agoI see Salt Man's bureau trips are paying off.
- marcinzm 3y agoReading this all I'm seeing is "we'll research these things", "we'll look into how to keep AIs from doing these things" and "tell the US government how you tested your foundational models." Except for the last one none of the others are really restrictions on anything or requirements for working with AI. There's a lot of fearful comments here, am I missing something?
- spandextwins 3y agoYes.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nerdponx 3y agoIf anything, it's a measured, realistic, and pragmatic statement.
- api 3y agoSo they paid some lip service to the ban matrix math crowd but otherwise ignored them. Top notch.
- claytongulick 3y agoEven the testing reports are a grey area and questionably enforceable, and a big question about what it applies to. "In accordance with the Defense Production Act, the Order will require that companies developing any foundation model that poses a serious risk to national security, national economic security, or national public health and safety must notify the federal government when training the model, and must share the results of all red-team safety tests." It's leap to use the defense production act for this, and unlikely to survive a legal challenge. Even then, what legal test would you use to determine whether a model "poses a serious risk to national security, national economic security, or national public health and safety"?
- sirmike_ 3y agoThis is useless just like everything they do. Masterfully full of synergy and nonsense talk. Is there anyone hear who actually believes this will do something? Sincere question.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nojito 3y agoThere’s some cool stuff in here about providing assistance to smaller researchers. That should help a lot given how hard it currently is to train a foundational model. The restrictions around government use of AI and data brokers is also refreshing to see as well.
- perihelions 3y agoThe White House just invoked the Defense Production Act ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 ) to assert sweeping authority over private-company software developers. What the fuck are they smoking? - "In accordance with the Defense Production Act, the Order will require that companies developing any foundation model that poses a serious risk to national security, national economic security, or national public health and safety must notify the federal government when training the model, and must share the results of all red-team safety tests." I assume this is a major constitutional overreach that will be overturned by courts at the first challenge? Or else, all the AI companies who haven't captured their regulators will simply move their R&D to some other country—like how the OpenSSH (?) core development moved to Canada during in the 1990's crypto wars. (edit: Maybe that's the real goal–scare away OpenAI's competition, dredge for them a deeper regulatory moat).
- ethanbond 3y agoFrom the Wikipedia article: > The third section authorizes the president to control the civilian economy so that scarce and critical materials necessary to the national defense effort are available for defense needs. Seems pretty broad and pretty directly relevant to me. And hey, if people don’t like the idea of models being the scarce and critical resource, they can pick GPUs instead. Why would it be an overreach when you have developers of these systems claiming they’ll allow them to “capture all value in the universe’s future light cone?” Obviously this can (and probably will) be challenged, but it seems a bit ambitious to just assume it’s unconstitutional because you don’t like it.
- perihelions 3y agoSoftware is definitionally not "scarce". There is no national defense war effort to speak of. Finally, the White House is not requesting "materials neccesary to the national defense effort"–which does not exist–it's attempting to regulate private-sector business activity. There's multiple things I suspect are unconstitutional here, the clearest being that this stuff is far outside the scope of the law it's invoking. The White House is really just trying to regulate commerce by executive fiat. That's the exclusive power of Congress—this is separation of powers question.
- engcoach 3y agoImpotent action to appear relevant.
- rvz 3y agoOpenAI, Anthropic Microsoft and Google are not your friends and the regulatory capture scam is being executed to destroy open source and $0 AI models since they are indeed a threat to their business models.
- px43 3y agoHuh, interesting. > Establish an advanced cybersecurity program to develop AI tools to find and fix vulnerabilities in critical software, building on the Biden-Harris Administration’s ongoing AI Cyber Challenge. Together, these efforts will harness AI’s potentially game-changing cyber capabilities to make software and networks more secure.
- Eumenes 3y agoThis is pretty ironic, trying to insure AI is "safe, secure, and trustworthy", from an administration that is fighting free speech on social media, and want back door communication with social media companies.
- RationalDino 3y agoI am afraid that this will just lead down the path to what https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1718654143110512741 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1718654143110512741 was mocking. We're dictating solutions to today's threats, leaving tomorrow to its own devices. But what will tomorrow bring? As Sam Altman warns in https://twitter.com/sama/status/1716972815960961174 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1716972815960961174, superhuman persuasion is likely to be next. What does that mean? We've already had the problem of social media echo chambers leading to extremism, and online influencers creating cult-like followings. https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/mental-health-liberal-girls https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/mental-health-liberal-g... is a sober warning about the dangers to mental health from this. These are connected humans accidentally persuading each other. Now imagine AI being able to drive that intentionally to a particular political end. Then remember that China controls TikTok. Will Biden's order keep China from developing that capability? Will we develop tools to identify how that might be being actively used against us? I doubt both. Instead, we'll almost certainly get security theater leading to a regulatory moat. Which is almost certain to help profit margins at established AI companies. But is unlikely to address the likely future problems that haven't materialized yet.
- boppo1 3y ago>security theater leading to a regulatory moat. Which is almost certain to help profit margins at established AI companies. Yeah I think this is my biggest worry given it will enable incumbents to be even more dominant in our lives than bigtech already is (unless we get an AI plateau again real soon).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- giantg2 3y ago"requirements that the most advanced A.I. products be tested to assure they cannot be used to produce weapons" In the information age, AI is the weapon. This can even apply to things like weaponizing economics. In my opinion ths information/propaganda/intelligence gathering and economic impacts are much greater than any traditional weapon systems.
- theothermelissa 3y agoThis is a fascinating (and disturbing) insight. I'm curious about your 'weaponizing economics' thought -- are you referencing anything specific?
- FpUser 3y agoIs somebody living under the bed? Economics was, is and will ever be weaponized.
- shadowgovt 3y agoBroadly speaking, there is an understanding that competition that nations used to undertake via military strength is nowadays taken via global economy. If you want something your neighbor has, it doesn't make sense to march your army over there and seize it because modern infrastructure is heavily disrupted by military action... You can't just steal your neighbor's successful automotive export business by bombing their factories. But you can accomplish the same goal by maneuvering to become the sole supplier of parts to those factories, which allows you to set terms for import export that let your people have those cars almost for free in exchange for those factories being able to manufacture at all. (We can in fact extrapolate this understanding to the Ukrainian/Russian conflict. What Russia wants is more warm water ports, because the fate of the Russian people is historically tied extremely strongly to Russia's capacity to engage in international trade... Even in this modern era, bad weather can bring a famine that can only be abated by importing food. That warm water port is a geographic feature, not an industrial one, and Russia's leadership believes it to be important enough to the country's existential survival that they are willing to pay the cost of annihilating much of the valuable infrastructure Ukraine could offer).
- unboxingelf 3y agoTools for me, but not thee.
- ryanklee 3y agoIt really seems beyond dispute that there are certain tools so powerful that we have no choice but to tightly control access.
- lettergram 3y ago> It really seems beyond dispute I'd dispute that completely. All innovations humans have created have trended towards zero cost to produce. The cost for many things (such as bioweapons, encryption, etc) has become exponentially cheaper to produce over time. To tightly control access, one would then need exponentially more control of resources, monitoring & in turn reduction of liberty. To put it into perspective encryption was once (still might be) considered an "arm", so they attempted to regulate its export. Try to regulate small arms (AR-15, etc) today and you'll end up getting kits where you can build your own for <$500. If you go after the kits, people will make 3D printed fire arms. Go after the 3D manufacturers and you'll end up with torrents where I can download an arsenal of designs (where we are today). So where are we at now? We're monitoring everyones communication, going through peoples mail, and still it's not stopping anything. That's how technology works -- progress is inevitable, you cannot regulate information.
- WitCanStain 3y agoThis is a strange argument. There is a vast difference between a world where you can buy semi-automatic weapons off a store shelf and one where you have to 3d-print one yourself or get a CNC mill to produce it. The point of regulation is to mitigate damage that comes from unfettered access, no regulation can ever prevent it completely. Of course, the comparison between computer programs and physical weapons is not strong in the first place.
- lettergram 3y ago
- d--b 3y agoI was downvoted 35 days ago, for daring to state that deepfakes will lead to AI being regulated. Of course “these are just recommendations”, but we’re getting there.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y agoHmm. It is possible that deepfakes are merely a good excuse. There is real money on the table and potentially world altering changes, which means people with money want to ensure it will not happen to them. Deepfakes don't affect money much.
- normalaccess 3y agoI’ve posted this elsewhere in this thread but the consequences of AI have HUGE knock on effects. https://youtu.be/-gGLvg0n-uY?si=B719mdQFtgpnfWvH https://youtu.be/-gGLvg0n-uY?si=B719mdQFtgpnfWvH https://youtube.com/shorts/Q_FUrVqvlfM?si=stb0KC_i5rbqfNyI https://youtube.com/shorts/Q_FUrVqvlfM?si=stb0KC_i5rbqfNyI Once global ID is cracked then global social credit can gain some traction. Etc…
- hellojesus 3y agoWhy would anyone comply though? Let's suppose you need some global id to access the web. What is preventing me from publishing my private key so that anyone can use it? Everyone could participate in this and make it completely useless as an identification mechanism.
- d--b 3y agoMy opinion too
- kaycebasques 3y agoI suspect the downvoting is more because of the tone of your comments rather than the content. From the HN guidelines: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. A lot of people on HN care deeply about AI and I imagine they're totally interested in discussing deepfakes potentially causing regulation. Just gotta be careful to mute the political sides of the debate, which I know is difficult when talking about regulation. Also note that I posted a comment 10 days ago with a largely similar meaning without getting downvoted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37956770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37956770
- BenoitP 3y agoEarlier on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38067314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38067314 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-on-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
- andrewmutz 3y agoFortunately, these regulations don't seem too extreme. I hope it stays at this point and doesn't escalate to regulations that severely impact the development of AI technology. Many people spend time talking about the lives that may be lost if we don't act to slow the progress of AI tech. There are just as many reasons to fear the lives lost if we do slow down the progress of AI tech (drug cures, scientific breakthroughs, etc).
- haswell 3y ago> There are just as many reasons to fear the lives lost if we do slow down the progress of AI tech (drug cures, scientific breakthroughs, etc). While I’m cautious about over regulation, and I do think there’s a lot of upside potential, I think there’s an asymmetry between potentially good outcomes and potentially catastrophic outcomes. What worries me is that it seems like there are far more ways it can/will harm us than there are ways it will save us. And it’s not clear that the benefit is a counteracting force to the potential harm. We could cure cancer and solve all of our energy problems, but this could all be nullified by runaway AGI or even more primitive forms of AI warfare. I think a lot of caution is still warranted.
- codexb 3y agoIt's literally a 1st amendment violation. Seems pretty extreme to me.
- Animats 3y ago> Fortunately, these regulations don't seem too extreme. I hope it stays at this point and doesn't escalate to regulations that severely impact the development of AI technology. The details matter. The parts being publicized refer to using AI assistance to do things that are already illegal. But what else is being restricted? The weapons issue is becoming real. The difference between crappy Hamas unguided missiles that just hit something at random and a computer vision guided Javelin that can take out tanks is in the guidance package. The guidance package is simpler than a smartphone and could be made out of smartphone parts. Is that being discussed?
- mark_l_watson 3y agoAndrew Ng argues against government regulation that will make it difficult for smaller companies and startups to compete against the tech giants. I am all in favor of stronger privacy and data reuse regulation, but not AI regulation.
- ru552 3y agoI wonder if the laws will be written in a way that we can get around them by just dropping the “AI” marketing fluff and saying that we’re building some ML/stats system.
- lsmeducation 3y agoI'm just using a hash map to count the number of word occurrences We're gonna need a RICO statute to go after these algos in the long run.
- acdha 3y agoNo - lawyers tend to describe things like this in terms of capabilities or behavior, and the government has people who understand the technology quite well. If you look at some of the definitions the White House used, I’d expect proposed legislation to be similarly written in terms of what something does rather than how it’s implemented. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/definitions/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/definition... > An “automated system” is any system, software, or process that uses computation as whole or part of a system to determine outcomes, make or aid decisions, inform policy implementation, collect data or observations, or otherwise interact with individuals and/or communities. Automated systems include, but are not limited to, systems derived from machine learning, statistics, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, and exclude passive computing infrastructure.
- bannedbybros 3y ago[dead]
- whelp_24 3y agoWhat is passive computing infrastructure? Doesn't this definitely include things like 'send email if subscribed'? Seems overly broad.
- acdha 3y agoThat’s defined in the document
- 14 3y agoThe cat is out of the bag. This will have no meaningful effect except to stop the lowest tier players.
- timtom39 3y agoIt might stop players like FB from releasing their new models open source...
- stanfordkid 3y agoRegulatory capture in action. The real immediate risks of AI is in privacy, bias, data leakage, fraud, control of infrastructure/medical equipment etc. not manufacturing biological weapons. This seems like a classic example of government doing something that looks good to the public, satisfies incumbents and does practically nothing.
- nojito 3y agoHow does providing research grants to small independent researchers satisfying incumbents?
- nopinsight 3y agoCurrent AI is already capable of designing toxic molecules. Dual use of artificial-intelligence-powered drug discovery https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-022-00465-9.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-022-00465-9.epdf Interview with the lead author here: "AI suggested 40,000 new possible chemical weapons in just six hours / ‘For me, the concern was just how easy it was to do’" https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22983197/ai-new-possible-chemical-weapons-generative-models-vx https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22983197/ai-new-possible-...
- yabones 3y agoChemical weapons are already a solved problem. By the mid 1920s there was already enough chemical agents to kill most of the population of Europe. By the 1970s there were enough in global stockpiles to kill every human on the planet several times over. Yes, this presents additional risk from non-state actors, but there's no fundamentally new risk here.
- BowBun 3y agoI agree in general. However much like how the rise of 'script kiddies' meant that inexperienced, sometimes underage kids get involved with hacking, one can worry the same can happen with AI-enabled activities. I've spent enough time in the shady parts of the internet to realize that people that spend significant time learning about niche/dangerous hobbies _tend_ to realize the seriousness of it. My fear with bio-weapons would be some 13-year-old being given step-by-step instructions with almost 0 effort to create something truly dangerous. It lowers the bar quite a bit for things that tended to be pretty niche and extreme.
- orbital-decay 3y ago> They include requirements that the most advanced A.I. products be tested to assure that they cannot be used to produce biological or nuclear weapons How is "AI" defined? Does this mean US nuclear weapons simulations will have to completely rely on hard methods, with absolutely no ML involved for some optimizations? What does it mean for things like AlphaFold?
- paxys 3y agoWhat makes you think the US military will be subject to these regulations?
- 2devnull 3y agoIf militaries are not subject to the regulation then it is meaningless. Who else would be building weapons systems?
- krisoft 3y agoThe worry here is not about controlling militaries. There are different processes for that. The scenario people purport to worry about is one where a future AI system can be asked by "anyone" to design infectious materials. Imagine a dissatisfied and emotionally unstable researcher who can just ask their computer for the DNA sequence of an airborne super Ebola. Then said researcher orders the DNA synthetized, does some lab work to multiply it and releases it in the general population. I have no idea how realistic this danger is. But this is what people seem to be thinking about.
- orbital-decay 3y agoThat is the question. AI is an ill-defined marketing BS, what is the actual definition in the law? Artificial Intelligence as used in the science/industry is a pretty broad term, and even more narrow "machine learning" is notoriously hard to define. Another question is that all this is being used for more than a decade for a lot of legitimate things which can also be easily misused to create biological weapons (AlphaFold), how does it regulate it? The article doesn't answer these questions, what matters is where exactly the actual proposed law draws the line in the sand. The devil is always in the details.
- ilaksh 3y agoGood start. But if you are in or approaching WWIII, you will see military AI control systems as a priority, and be looking for radical new AI compute paradigms that push the speed, robustness, and efficiency of general purpose AI far beyond any human ability to keep up. This puts Taiwan even more in the hot seat. And aims for a dangerous level of reliance on hyperspeed AI. I don't see any way to continue to have global security without resolving our differences with China. And I don't see any serious plans for doing that. Which leaves it to WWIII. Here is an article where the CEO of Palantir advocated for the creation of superintelligent AI weapons control systems: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/opinion/karp-palantir-artificial-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/opinion/karp-palantir-art...
- wolframhempel 3y agoI feel there is a strong interest by large incumbents in the AI space to push for this sort of regulation. Models are increasingly cheap to run and open source and there isn't too much of a defensible moat in the model itself. Instead, existing AI companies are using the government to increase the threshold for newcomers to enter the field. A regulation for all AI companies to have a testing regime that requires a 20 headstrong team is easy to meet for incumbents, but impossible for newcomers. Now, this is not to diminish that there are genuine risks in AI - but I'd argue that these will be exploited, if not by US companies, then by others. And the best weapon against AI might in fact be AI. So, pulling the ladder up behind the existing companies might turn out to be a major mistake.
- bizbizbizbiz 3y agoIt increases the threshold to enter, but with the intention of increasing public safety and accountability. There’s also a high threshold to enter for just about every other product you can manufacture and purchase - food, pharmaceuticals, machinery to name obvious examples - why should software be different if it can affect someone’s life or livelihood?
- junofan 3y agoFeels a little like getting a license from Parliament to run a printing press to catch people printing scandalous pamphlets, no?
- ben_w 3y agoDidn't the printing press lead to the modern idea of copyright, the Reformation, and by extension contributed to the 80 Year's War, and through that Westphalian sovereignty?
- distortionfield 3y agoYes, as well as a serious new test of freedom of speech. What’s your point? Technology always advances society’s laws.
- ThinkBeat 3y ago> biological or nuclear weapons, You know aside from the AIs the intelligence and military use / will soon use. > watermarked to make clear that they were created by A.I. Good luck on that. It is fine that the systems do this. But if you are making images for nefarious reasons then bypassing whatever they ad should be simple. screencap / convert between different formats, add / remove noise
- bilsbie 3y agoCan anyone understand how they can make all these regulations without an act of congress?
- kirykl 3y agoPerhaps if they classify the tech in some way it falls under existing regulatory authority, but it could of course be challenged
- mrcwinn 3y agoYes, it's easy to understand. Congress (our legislative branch) grants authority to the departments (our executive branch) to implement various passed laws. In this case, it looks like the Biden administration is instructing HHS and other agencies to study, better understand, and provide guidance on how AI impacts existing laws and policies. If Congress were responsible for exactly how every law was implemented, which inevitably runs headlong into very tactical and operational details, the Congress would effectively become the Executive. Of course, if a department in the executive branch oversteps the powers granted to it by the legislative, affected parties have recourse via the judicial branch. It's imperfect but not a bad system overall.
- bilsbie 3y agoThat makes sense but isn’t it reasonable to think congress should be involved if regulating a brand new technology?
- barryrandall 3y agoThe legislature has the right and ability to do so at any time it so chooses, and has chosen not to. As our legislative branch is currently non-functional, it's reasonable to expect that legislative action will not be taken in any kind of time frame that matters.
- meragrin_ 3y agoThe executive branch cannot just make up laws because the legislative branch is "non-functional". The executive branch merely enforces the laws. If there is no law regulating AI, it is not reasonable for the executive branch to just up and decide to create regulations and be allowed to enforce them.
- yoran 3y ago"Every industry that has enough political power to utilise the state will seek to control entry." - George Stigler, Nobel prize winner in Economics, and worked extensively on regulatory capture This explains why BigTech supports regulation. It distorts the free market by increasing the barriers to entry for new, innovative AI companies.
- w10-1 3y agoStigler in particular (and transaction cost economics in general) point out that it's mainly industries with sunk resources (esp. immovable assets) that are incentivized to regulate market entry. The tech sector has wildly moving resources (AI this year, crypto last year, big-data the year before...), even to the point where many skills are transferable; further, their markets include anything that can be digitized ("software will eat the world"), so investment can be quickly retooled as opportunities arise. As a result, tech virtually never seeks regulation (and can hide behind contract-law fictions to disclaim liability in software licenses and impose arbitration clauses for services). So it's not an instance of capture, and certainly not for the usual economic reasons. Biden wants tech on his side. Tech wants to escape further blows to its goodwill like FaceBook/Google ad tracking, because every consumer tech application involves users trusting tech. So they cut a deal to put themselves on the right side of history, long on symbolism and short on real impact. In AI, resources matter only to the extent you believe that larger LLM's can (a) not be replicated, (b) provide significant advantages, or (c) can impose a winner-take-all world where operations lead to more operations. In AI more than most markets, the little guy still has a chance at changing the world.
- pr337h4m 3y agoFirst Amendment hasn't been fully destroyed yet, and we're talking about large 'language' models here, so most mandates might not even be enforceable (except for requirements on selling to the government, which can be bypassed by simply not selling to the government). Edited to add: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-on-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... Except for the first bullet point (and arguably the second), everything else is a directive to another federal agency - they have NO POWER over general-purpose AI developers (as long as they're not government contractors) The first point: "Require that developers of the most powerful AI systems share their safety test results and other critical information with the U.S. government. In accordance with the Defense Production Act, the Order will require that companies developing any foundation model that poses a serious risk to national security, national economic security, or national public health and safety must notify the federal government when training the model, and must share the results of all red-team safety tests. These measures will ensure AI systems are safe, secure, and trustworthy before companies make them public." The second point: "Develop standards, tools, and tests to help ensure that AI systems are safe, secure, and trustworthy. The National Institute of Standards and Technology will set the rigorous standards for extensive red-team testing to ensure safety before public release. The Department of Homeland Security will apply those standards to critical infrastructure sectors and establish the AI Safety and Security Board. The Departments of Energy and Homeland Security will also address AI systems’ threats to critical infrastructure, as well as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cybersecurity risks. Together, these are the most significant actions ever taken by any government to advance the field of AI safety." Since the actual text of the executive order has not been released yet, I have no idea what even is meant by "safety tests" or "extensive red-team testing". But using them as a condition to prevent release of your AI model to the public would be blatantly unconstitutional as prior restraint is prohibited under the First Amendment. Prior restraint was confirmed by the Supreme Court to apply even when "national security" is involved in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) - the Pentagon Papers case. The Pentagon Papers were actually relevant to "national security", unlike LLMs or diffusion models. More on prior restraint here: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/prior-restraint/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/prior-restraint/ Basically, this EO is toothless - have a spine and everything will be all right :)
- imranhou 3y agoThis is clever, begin with a point that most people can agree on. Once that foundation is set, you can continue to build upon it, claiming that you're only making minor adjustments. The real challenge for the government isn't about what can be managed legally. Rather, like many significant societal issues, it's about what malicious organizations or governments might do beyond regulation and how to stop them. In this situation, that's nearly impossible.
- psychlops 3y agoI don't know, it began with the words "FACT SHEET" and based on that I already started to doubt the integrity of it's contents.
- Koshkin 3y agoDPRK will make this their law ASAP
- coding123 3y agoUnfortunately he doesn't know what he signed.
- photochemsyn 3y agoIf they try to limit LLMs from discussing nuclear, biological and chemical issues, they'll have no choice but to ban all related discussion because of the 'dual-use technology' issue - including of nuclear energy production, antibiotic and vaccine production, insecticide manufacturing, etc. Similarly, illegal drug synthesis only differs from legal pharmaceutical synthesis in minor ways. ChatGPT will tell you everything you want about how to make aspirin from willow bark using acetic anhydride - and if you replace the willow bark with morphine from opium poppies, you're making heroin. Also, script kiddies aren't much of a threat in terms of physical weapons compared to cyberattack issues. Could one get an LLM to code up a Stuxnet attack of some kind? Are the regulators going to try to ban all LLM coding related to industrial process controllers? Seems implausible, although concerns are justified I suppose. I'm sure the regulatory agencies are well aware of this and are just waving this flag around for other reasons, such as gaining censorship power over LLM companies. With respect to the DOE's NNSA (see article), ChatGPT is already censorsing 'sensitive topics': > "Details about any specific interactions or relationships between the NNSA and Israel in the context of nuclear power or weapons programs may not be publicly disclosed or discussed... As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, there were no specific bans or regulations in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that explicitly prohibited its employees from discussing the Israeli nuclear weapons program." I'm guessing the real concern is that LLMs don't start burbling on about such politically and diplomatically embarrassing subjects at length without any external controls. In this case, NNSA support for the Israeli nuclear weapons program would constitute a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- AlexanderTheGr8 3y agoAs far as I can tell, the only concerning thing in this is "Require that developers of the most powerful AI systems share their safety test results and other critical information with the U.S. government." They are being intentionally vague here. Define "most powerful". And what do they mean by "share". Do we need approval or just acknowledgement? This line is a slippery slope for requiring approval for any AI model which effectively kills start-ups, who cannot afford extensive safety precautions
- normalaccess 3y agoAll joking aside I firmly believe that this “crisis” is manufactured or at least heavily influenced by those that want to shut down the internet and free communications. Up until now they have been unsuccessful. Copyright infringement, hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, child exploitation, deep fakes, none have worked to garner support. Now we have an existential threat. Video, audio, text, nothin is off limits and soon it will be in real time (note: the GOV tries to stay 25 years ahead of the private sector). This meme video incapsulates this perfectly. https://youtu.be/-gGLvg0n-uY?si=B719mdQFtgpnfWvH https://youtu.be/-gGLvg0n-uY?si=B719mdQFtgpnfWvH Mark my words, in five years or less we will be begging the governments of earth to implement permanent global real time tracking for every man woman and child on earth. Privacy is dead. And WE killed it.
- normalaccess 3y agoIt’s already begun… https://youtube.com/shorts/Q_FUrVqvlfM?si=0EFPy02k4Xs60SPC https://youtube.com/shorts/Q_FUrVqvlfM?si=0EFPy02k4Xs60SPC
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoAny major restrictions will be handing the future to China, Russia and UAE for the short term gain of presumably some kickbacks from incumbents.
- honeybadger1 3y agoExpect trash that protects big business and puts a boot on everyone else's neck.
- honeybadger1 3y agoThis will just make it harder for businesses not lining the pockets of congress and buddying up with the government.
- brodouevencode 3y agoHow much will this regulation cost in 5, 10, 50 years? Who will write the regulations?
- siliconc0w 3y agoBoth approaches - watermarking and 'requiring testing' seem pretty pointless. Bad actors won't watermark and tools will quickly emerge to remove them. The 'megasyn' AI that generated bioweapon molecules wasn't even an LLM and doesn't need insane amounts of compute.
- ThrowawayTestr 3y agoI'm so glad this country is run by a geriatric that can barely pronounce AI let alone understand it.
- incompatible 3y agoWhen did the US last have a president with an engineering background? They actually have staff and lobbyists who write these things, the president just signs it off.
- SoftTalker 3y agoProbably Jimmy Carter. He had a nuclear engineering background.
- ThrowawayTestr 3y agoNo country should be run by people past the age of retirement. This has nothing to do with Biden's qualifications.
- junofan 3y agoIt’s becoming more than just retirement age. I found his recent 60 Minutes interview difficult to watch. I would not want an elderly loved one out there like that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Nifty3929 3y agoI'm worried about the idea of a watermark. The watermark could be "Created by DALL-E3" or it could be "Created by Susan Johnson at 2023-01-01-02-03-23:547 in <Lat/Long> using prompt 'blah' with DALL-E3" One of those watermarks seems not too bad. The other seems a bit worse.
- almatabata 3y agoThese regulations will only impact the public. I expect the army and secret service to gain access to the complete unrestricted model officially or unofficially. I would like to see the final law to check if they have a carve out for the military usage. The threat includes the whole world including every single country in the world. You will see US using AI to mess with China and Russian. And you will see Russian and China use AI to mess with US. No regulation will stop this and it will inevitably happen. Maybe in a 100 years you will have the equivalent of the geneva convention but with AI when we have wrought enough chaos on each other.
- RecycledEle 3y agoIn Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, only those who had served in the military could vote on going to war. (I know that I'm oversimplifying.) I want a society where you have to prove competence in a field to regulate that field.
- nightski 3y agoIf all the conversations about AI risk have taught us anything it's that the most crazy comes from some of the most experienced in the field. I don't know if it is due to some outrageous desire to stand out or be heard, but it's pretty absurd.
- DebtDeflation 3y ago>The National Institute of Standards and Technology will set the rigorous standards for extensive red-team testing to ensure safety before public release. So if, for example, Llama3 does not pass the government's safety test, then Meta will be forbidden from releasing the model? Welcome to a world where only OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Amazon are allowed to release foundation models.
- rvz 3y ago> So if, for example, Llama3 does not pass the government's safety test, then Meta will be forbidden from releasing the model? Yes. This is exactly the goals of this EO is meant to do and amplifies the fear of extremely large models for the sake of so-called "AI safety" nonsense. The best counter weight against AI being controlled by a select few companies is by making it accessible to all including open source or $0 AI models. A 'safety score' for an cloud-based AI model is hardly transparent.
- stale2002 3y agoNot necessarily. Meta could just do a "private" release, knowing that the results will likely show up on the pirate bay. All it takes is a single hero with a USB drive, to effectively release world changing technology.
- I_am_uncreative 3y agoWhat a world we're in where Meta might actually be the Good Guys.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- collsni 3y agoThis isn't about regulation this is about Market control
- maytc 3y agoRegulatory capture for AI is here? Looking at Bill Gurley's 2,851 Mile talk (https://12mv2.com/2023/10/05/2851-miles-bill-gurley-transcript-slides/ https://12mv2.com/2023/10/05/2851-miles-bill-gurley-transcri...)
- mr_toad 3y agoBe a shame if your AI was deemed a risk to national security. Not to worry, for a reasonable fee our surprisingly large team of auditors with even larger overheads can ensure you meet lengthy and ambiguous best practice checklists (which we totally did not just make up now) by producing enough compliance documentation to keep even the most anal of bureaucrats satisfied.
- baggy_trough 3y agoDisturbing that this sort of thing can be decreed by the executive.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- elicksaur 3y agoFrom the E.O.[1] > (b) The term “artificial intelligence” or “AI” has the meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3): a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. Artificial intelligence systems use machine- and human-based inputs to perceive real and virtual environments; abstract such perceptions into models through analysis in an automated manner; and use model inference to formulate options for information or action. Oops, I made a regulated artificial intelligence! import random print("Prompt:") x = input() model = ["pizza", "ice cream"] if x == "What should I have for dinner?": pick = random.randint(0, 1) print("You should have " + model[pick] + " for dinner.") [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
- panny 3y agoThat's pretty funny and fits the definition. I wonder how long it takes for someone protesting this EO to create an AI that generates "AIs" like this to flood the reporting system with announcements of testing and red-team test results. Just following orders sir!
- elicksaur 3y agoIt could be fun to find the shortest program that fits the legal definition!
- thepasswordis 3y agoprint(“Eat %s” % random.choice([“Pizza”,”Ice Cream”]))
- jawiggins 3y agoThe E.O. also requires that a model be reported if it: > was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations, or using primarily biological sequence data and using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^23 integer or floating-point operations However later it also says that reported is needed for, "Companies developing or demonstrating an intent to develop". If I start training a CNN on an endless loop, do I become subject to these reporting requirements? Also the fops requirement is not that high. An H100 does 3,958 fp8 flops. So it would take, > >>> (10 * 23) / (3958 * (10 * 12)) / 86400 > 292.422 292 days until you have a regulated model.
- otoburb 3y ago>>The term “artificial intelligence” or “AI” has the meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3): a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. Artificial intelligence systems use machine- and human-based inputs to perceive real and virtual environments; abstract such perceptions into models through analysis in an automated manner; and use model inference to formulate options for information or action. I find the definition of AI to be eerily broad enough to encompass most programs operating on most data inputs. Would this mean that calls to FFmpeg or ImageMagick rolled into a script with some rand() calls would count as an AI system and be under federal purview and enforcement (whatever that means in this context)?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Rebuff5007 3y agoIt boggles my mind that this is getting so much attention instead of things like digital privacy / data tracking which is actually affecting peoples lives.
- parasense 3y agoI used to work on AI. Now I work on Artificial Stupidity... Jokes aside, this is ludicrous. The president cannot enforce this regulation over open source projects, because code is free speech going back to the 1990s ATT v BSD case law, and many other cases the establish how source code is an artistic form of expression, thus protected speech. The president has no authority to regulate speech, so they can pretty much fuck off.
- frankthedog 3y agoExplain that to the tornado cash guys
- qweqwe14 3y agoTornado Cash guys had poor opsec. Pretty obvious that if you are dumb enough the feds will get you.
- frankthedog 3y agoIf code is free speech it wouldn’t matter whether they had good OpSec or not is what I’m saying
- qweqwe14 3y agoIt's free speech until it isn't, the feds went after it because it was used for money laundering. With money laundering issues in particular, this free speech thing gets tossed out of the window. Tornado's creators should've seen this coming. Thinking that "free speech" would stand in the way of IRS getting mad and shutting it down is delusional.
- totallywrong 3y agoLike we haven't had rights and freedom taken away consistently over the past two decades in the name of safety, whatever that is. What you mention will be irrelevant after some new law that says open source AI code should be regulated too and everyone is forced to comply.
- EMM_386 3y agoI don't see any way of stopping this. If the risks are as great as some claim, that is not a great situation. So now we have an executive order with a very limited scope. Tomorrow, suddenly the world's most powerful AI is now announced, not in the United States. Ok, so now we want to make sure that is safe. An executive order from the White House has no affect on it. This can continue, until it's decided the stakes are getting too high. Then I suppose you could have the United Nations start trying to figure out how to maintain safety. Of course, there will be countries that will simply ignore anything that is decided, hiding increasingly advanced systems with unknown purposes. It will probably take longer for nations to determine a what defines "human values" so that AI respects them then it does to create another leap in AI capabilities. Then there would simply be more concerns coming into play. Countries will go to war to try to stop other countries nuclear ambitions, is it possible that AI poses enough of a threat that similar problems arise? Basically, if AI is as potentially large a threat as we are envisioning, there are so many different potential threats that trying to solve them while trying to stay ahead of pace of advancements seems unrealistic. While someone is trying to ensure we don't end up with systems going rogue, someone else needs to handle the fact that we can't have AI creating certain things. The AI systems are not allowed to tinker with viruses, as an example, where unexpected creations can lead to extremely bad situations. The initial stages of this have already begun, and time is ticking. I guess we'll see.
- batch12 3y agoThis line is a little scary: > Ensure fairness throughout the criminal justice system by developing best practices on the use of AI in sentencing, parole and probation, pretrial release and detention, risk assessments, surveillance, crime forecasting and predictive policing, and forensic analysis.
- hatthew 3y agoMy (possibly naive) hope is that the best practice for a lot of these would be "Don't use AI." That being said, there's certainly a lot of niches in our system where AI could be used. For example, if a witness uses AI to make a sketch of the suspect they saw, you can bypass all the biases present in a police sketch artist.
- atleastoptimal 3y agoTo those worried about regulatory capture, this EO just being about keeping incumbents in power, etc: Even sans-regulation, do non-incumbents really have a chance at this point? The most recent major player in the field, Anthropic, only reached its level of prominence due to taking a critical mass of former OpenAI employees, and in a year reached 700 million in funding. Every company that became a major player in the AI space in the last 10 years either 1. Is an existing huge company (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc) 2. Secured 99.99th percentile level venture funding within the first year of its inception due to its founders preexisting connections/prestige Realistically there isn't going to be a "Facebook" moment for AI where some scrappy genius in college cooks up a SOTA model and goes stratospheric overnight, even in a libertarian fantasyland just due to market/network effects. People just have to be realistic about the way things are.
- I_am_uncreative 3y agoIs there a penalty for non-compliance here? Because if you were a wealthy recluse with 50,000x H100 cards, the executive order might say you have to report your models, but I'm pretty sure that there's no penalty that could be enforced without a law.
- monksy 3y agoThe privacy section is just a facepalm all arround there. The US Government has been leading the way to collect information without a warrant from friendly commerical interests.. and they've been expanding futher in tracking large groups of people, without their consent. [I'm talking about people that are not under investigation nor are the current subject of interest ... yet]
- pyuser583 3y agoA lot of folks are talking about “incumbents in AI taking regulatory control.” That is extremely premature. There are no real incumbents. The only companies with real cash flow from this are hardware. We still don’t know what commercial AI will look like - much less have massive incumbents. Maybe we should be a bit more skeptical of privacy laws that conventionally make it harder to start a social networking site or search engine. But AI still doesn’t have a clear application.
- jiggawatts 3y agoEveryone forgets that all of this should have applied to every major search engine: 1. They’ve all used much more than the regulatory threshold compute power for indexing and collating. 2. They can be used to answer arbitrary questions, including how to kill oneself or produce weapons to kill others. Yes, including detailed nuclear weapons designs. 3. Can be used to find pornography, racist material, sexist literature, and on, and on… largely without censure or limit. So… why the sudden need to curtail what we can and can’t do with computers?
- bbitmaster 3y agoWhat a lot of nonsense, where is the executive order banning gain of function research?
- billy_bitchtits 3y agoCode is free speech. Reminds me of the cryptography fights.