4 ms·

>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 wor

by 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).

ethanbond 3y ago
And choosing not to regulate prevents that… how exactly?
- whelp_24 3y ago
  By ensuring there is competition and alternatives that don't cost a million before you can even start training.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Lack of regulation doesn’t ensure competition nor low prices. The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself.
    - czl 3y ago
      > Lack of regulation doesn’t ensure competition nor low prices. High barriers to entry however does prevent prevent competition and that does raise prices. > The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself. Was this not true about computers when they were new? What would have happened if early on similar laws were passed restricting computers?
- RationalDino 3y ago
  Your question embeds a logical fallacy. You're challenging a statement of the form, "A causes B. I don't like B, so we shouldn't do A." You are challenging it by asking, "How does not doing A prevent B?" Converting that to logic, you are replacing "A implies B" with "not-A implies not-B". But those statements are far from equivalent! To answer the real question, it is good to not guarantee a bad result, even though doing so doesn't guarantee a good result. So no, choosing not to regulate does not guarantee that we stop this particular problem. It just means that we won't CAUSE it.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    No, GP specifically said it “enables” it, not that it contributes to it. If they meant to say “contributes to,” then the obvious question is: to what degree and for what benefit? Which is a very different conversation than a binary “enabling” of a bad outcome.
    - RationalDino 3y ago
      When someone says that building ramps enables wheelchair users to get into buildings with stairs, would you be the person who argues that isn't actually enabling because they can just pay someone to carry them up the stairs? That clearly stupid argument exactly parallels what you are saying. Down to using the word "enables".
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        It’s clearly not an exact parallel, because there’s an obvious answer to “not building ramps prevents mobility… how exactly?” Anyway no need to get into the meta argument here. If GP thinks regulation just increases the risk of centralization, I’m more interested in thinking through the pros and cons of that.
        RationalDino 3y ago
        If you're interested in that topic, reading through the discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072218 is a good place to start.

by boppo1 3y ago

ethanbond 3y ago

And choosing not to regulate prevents that… how exactly?

whelp_24 3y ago
By ensuring there is competition and alternatives that don't cost a million before you can even start training.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Lack of regulation doesn’t ensure competition nor low prices. The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself.
  - czl 3y ago
    > Lack of regulation doesn’t ensure competition nor low prices. High barriers to entry however does prevent prevent competition and that does raise prices. > The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself. Was this not true about computers when they were new? What would have happened if early on similar laws were passed restricting computers?
RationalDino 3y ago
Your question embeds a logical fallacy. You're challenging a statement of the form, "A causes B. I don't like B, so we shouldn't do A." You are challenging it by asking, "How does not doing A prevent B?" Converting that to logic, you are replacing "A implies B" with "not-A implies not-B". But those statements are far from equivalent! To answer the real question, it is good to not guarantee a bad result, even though doing so doesn't guarantee a good result. So no, choosing not to regulate does not guarantee that we stop this particular problem. It just means that we won't CAUSE it.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  No, GP specifically said it “enables” it, not that it contributes to it. If they meant to say “contributes to,” then the obvious question is: to what degree and for what benefit? Which is a very different conversation than a binary “enabling” of a bad outcome.
  - RationalDino 3y ago
    When someone says that building ramps enables wheelchair users to get into buildings with stairs, would you be the person who argues that isn't actually enabling because they can just pay someone to carry them up the stairs? That clearly stupid argument exactly parallels what you are saying. Down to using the word "enables".
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      It’s clearly not an exact parallel, because there’s an obvious answer to “not building ramps prevents mobility… how exactly?” Anyway no need to get into the meta argument here. If GP thinks regulation just increases the risk of centralization, I’m more interested in thinking through the pros and cons of that.
      - RationalDino 3y ago
        If you're interested in that topic, reading through the discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072218 is a good place to start.