3 ms·

> 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 "

> 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 ago
What makes you think the US military will be subject to these regulations?
- 2devnull 3y ago
  If militaries are not subject to the regulation then it is meaningless. Who else would be building weapons systems?
  - krisoft 3y ago
    The 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 ago
      That 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.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Now that you mentioned it... Does it outlaw the Intel and AMD's amd64 branch predictors?
- czl 3y ago
  > Does it outlaw the Intel and AMD's amd64 branch predictors? Does better branch prediction enable better / faster weapons development? Perhaps we need laws restricting general purpose computing? Imagine what "terrorists" could do if they get access to general purpose computing!

paxys 3y ago

What makes you think the US military will be subject to these regulations?

2devnull 3y ago
If militaries are not subject to the regulation then it is meaningless. Who else would be building weapons systems?
- krisoft 3y ago
  The 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 ago
    That 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.

marcosdumay 3y ago

Now that you mentioned it... Does it outlaw the Intel and AMD's amd64 branch predictors?

czl 3y ago
> Does it outlaw the Intel and AMD's amd64 branch predictors? Does better branch prediction enable better / faster weapons development? Perhaps we need laws restricting general purpose computing? Imagine what "terrorists" could do if they get access to general purpose computing!