4 ms·
Our governments care dearly about "AI safety" (nobody actually knows what that means or is qualified to define it yet) but not a right to privacy.
by cedws 3y ago
Our governments care dearly about "AI safety" (nobody actually knows what that means or is qualified to define it yet) but not a right to privacy.
- Beta-7 3y ago> nobody actually knows what that means I sure hope it doesn't mean the government will shape the future of AI development how they see fit.
- mattnewton 3y agoNo that seems to be exactly the plan. Or rather, how some lobbyists they are talking to see fit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/30/biden-artificial-intelligence-executive-order/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/30/biden-a...
- dylan604 3y agothis is the real thing. this looks like it's gov't legislation, but we all know that it is corporate lobbyists that actually provide that legislation.
- lawlessone 3y ago>nobody actually knows what that means or is qualified to define it yet Now is the time to start talking about it and taking it seriously though. If we keep avoiding trying to define it then we'll never be qualified to do so.
- pesfandiar 3y agoThe United States has by far the largest consumer market in the world. A right to privacy hinders access to that market and slows it down.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zzzzzzzza 3y ago"Protecting Americans’ Privacy" is the second top level bullet point out of 8 top level bullet points
- oshout 3y agoI realize you're making a direct reference but scare-quotes seem more applicable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes "documents of the FVEY have shown that they are intentionally spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other"
- simonw 3y agoThere's a section on data privacy here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/data-privacy-2/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/data-priva...
- phillipcarter 3y agoIf you read the fact sheet they released (linked to on the page) you can see there's some very specific things they're outlining with regards to safety: 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... Your comment is a cynical one. The very people qualified to define something like AI safety for the US population is...the US Government. Which is what they're doing. If you don't like some of what they're doing, there's many pathways to making sure your voice is heard, including voting for people who would explicitly support your policy preferences.
- asynchronous 3y agoI personally don’t enjoy the government enforcing monopolies and moats for the FAANGs of the world.
- phillipcarter 3y agoWhat specifically in the order do you disagree with?
- cbozeman 3y agoLOL, we all know exactly what that means... > Doesn't threaten the profits of entrenched gigantic megacorps. > Doesn't threaten the status quo of the megawealthy. > Doesn't threaten the highly-entrenched people in the government. AI safety is about making AI "safe" for their pocketbooks.
- EmilioMartinez 3y agoWhat else would you expect? Both issues are about power, and I say that in the most matter-of-fact and non-judgemental fashion I can. The US government will effectively defend the privacy of American people as long as it poses a vulneravility, and that is one facet of AI safety. But a "right to privacy" as a domestic matter is different beast and there's clear malalignment.