8 ms·

Let's shoot US innovation and leadership in the foot by establishing random limits on foundation model research. According to EO's guidelines on commpute, some

Let's shoot US innovation and leadership in the foot by establishing random limits on foundation model research. According to EO's guidelines on commpute, something like GPT4 probably falls under reporting guidelines. Also, in the last 10 years GPU compute capabilities grew 1000x. What will be happening even 2 or 5 years from now? Edit: yes, regulations are necessary but we should regulate applications of AI, not fundamental research in it.

az09mugen 3y ago
You write it like there is litteraly 0 risk. Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible with AI ? Edit : Totally agree with qualifiedai's edit
- qualifiedai 3y ago
  The risk of AI, is much smaller than the risk of computer graphics or social media. My point is that applications of AI must be regulated, not fundamental research.
  - az09mugen 3y ago
    I totally agree with your second point.
  - chii 3y ago
    How is it different if the same application can be done without the use of an ai?
- andy_xor_andrew 3y ago
  > Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible with AI ? Alright, you hooked me in. What are they?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scammers-ai-mimic-voices-loved-ones-in-distress/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scammers-ai-mimic-voices-loved-... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66983194 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66983194
    - rockemsockem 3y ago
      That is not what is being discussed. Those things are already very illegal and we don't need new and novel ways to address them.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        That's exactly what's being discussed? A dramatic reduction in cost and increase in effectiveness of some undesirable behavior is exactly when you should look for new ways to address it. The goal of making things illegal is to prevent their occurrence, and if they get suddenly much cheaper and more effective, then your prior methods of deterring them will no longer work.
        kanzure 3y ago
        > The goal of making things illegal is to prevent their occurrence. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from using drugs. Only a person can stop themselves from doing something, that's not something a law does.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        I didn't say all laws are 100% effective, or even greater than 0% effective. I stated why we have laws at all. Pretty wild logic you've got here. Let's try this one: > Making murder illegal didn't stop people from murdering. Only a person can stop themselves from doing something, that's not something a law does. Should we not have rape, murder, arson, or fraud laws?
        pixl97 3y ago
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  You write like there are 0 other countries.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible without AI too?
- omginternets 3y ago
  You need to argue two things: 1. There are risks specific to AI or specifically aggravated by AI (easy) 2. Federal regulation of AI safety will reduce those risks (good luck) When articulating your arguments for point 2, I would recommend addressing the thorny issue of proliferation.
  - az09mugen 3y ago
    It's not my job nor I have the imagination or the knowledge to argue 2. But don't you agree at least some legal questions should be asked about this overhype of AI ? Because I don't see any so far. Edit : this is the kind of legal question I was talking about, just learned it now : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38102760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38102760
    - omginternets 3y ago
      >But don't you agree at least some legal questions should be asked about this overhype of AI ? I have trouble answering that question as you've asked it. It seems like we agree on several things, namely: 1. that any technology is subject to worst-case analysis; and, 2. that it is appropriate in principle for law to govern the use of technology. Here's what I'm having trouble unpacking in your question: 1. What are the exact legal questions you think should be asked, and aren't? (N.B. Your link is paywalled, and doesn't seem to refer to a specific legal question) 2. What is it about AI exactly that you think is overhyped, and seem to think I disagree with? I don't have a lot of context to go on, so some of my questions may also contain unwarranted assumptions. I hope you'll point them out :) 1. Have you thought about the difficulties involved in legislating around AI? Specifically, I've found it very difficult to articulate what is and isn't appropriate use of AI with any real precision. Let me give an example. I think we can all agree that "nudifying" photographs of minors is at least in poor taste, if not outright dangerous, and that it is fair game to make this particular usage of technology illegal. However, where do you stand on the idea that regulators should disallow the "nudification" use altogether? I can think of several legitimate (if a bit niche) uses, ranging from the creation of medical diagrams and teaching materials to filming love scenes in mainstream cinema with cloths-on and removing the cloths in post-processing. Do you think it's fair game to disallow these uses? If so, should this be absolute liability or should there be a notion of intent? If you think, as I do, that the technical capability should be unrestricted except insofar as it is employed to illegal ends, then we don't need any new laws. We simply apply the laws against, say, involuntary pornography and sexual exploitation of minors, and the problem is solved from a legal perspective; it is now a job for the executive branch. 2. I would appreciate it if you could speak to the risk of misclassification. Many of the proposed regulations involve training AI systems to monitor other AI systems (or themselves, as with the case of prompt engineering). What happens when the black box makes mistakes? Do we accept that a small number of innocent people will be labeled X by AI? How should the law take this possibility into account? Again, do we accept that legitimate uses are de facto crippled or entirely disabled? That's one outcome I would very much like to avoid. 3. On a macro-scale, how do we deal with the fact that other (perhaps less scrupulous) nations will have access to unrestricted AI? Point 3 is particularly troubling from a regulation perspective, because the penchant of software for proliferation is astronomically higher than that of, say, nuclear weapons. This feels like the 90's crypto export-controls all over again, which is minimally a gigantic waste of resources and maximally a crippling economical vulnerability. P.S.: My friend, it is exactly your job to argue your case when speaking about public issues. The term for this is "civic duty".
therobot24 3y ago
Read the https://www.stateof.ai/ https://www.stateof.ai/ reports or even the Stanford AI Index (https://aiindex.stanford.edu/ https://aiindex.stanford.edu/) reports from the last few years. There's plenty of reason to try to create some limits on AI. It's very likely the proposed limits won't be "random" as you say.
vsareto 3y ago
Better than companies doing their own thing and not having any restrictions or oversight at all. Remember that those companies will get rid of some portion of their workers as soon as they think an AI can do most of that work. Heck, they did layoffs and started hiring again without any advancements. You can't trust companies to self-regulate.
- gustavus 3y ago
  I'm sure China and Russia and Iran and all those other nations will 100% see the value of artificially restricting their AI efforts as well because of the risk of harm, and be socially responsible global citizens, that won't exploit this edge for thier own geopolitical agenda.
  - jprete 3y ago
    China’s government is extremely interested in restricting their AI efforts because they don’t want it to contradict the Communist party.
    - __loam 3y ago
      Yeah people bringing up China as if it's some bastion of freedom in comparison to us are hilarious.
      - gustavus 3y ago
        Soviet man and American man were arguing about which country was more free. The American man said "I am so free I could walk up to the White house right now and scream 'I hate Ronald Reagan he is an incompetent buffoon.' Without getting arrested." The Russian man responded "That is not any more free than me I too could walk up to the Kremlin and scream 'I hate Ronald Reagan he is an incompetent buffoon.' without getting in any trouble."
      - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
        No one did that. That is a straw man. People are less free but govt and institutions aligned with govt are more free.
sp527 3y ago
[flagged]
- mistrial9 3y ago
  yes and - the FoundationModel approach encases un-duplicatable master-models as central providers with faucets -- perfect fit for technocracy fueled with cash looking for a return.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > we're in the final stages of capitalism This is wrong in the sense that modern mixed economies are already post-capitalist if you take a narrow view of capitalism, and also almost certainly wrong if you take the broader view of capitalism which encompasses the modern mixed economy (say, any system featuring private ownership of the means of production even if the practical exercise of control of owners is constrained by democratically constituted public authority enforcing some views of the common interest.) “Late-stage capitalism” wishcasting may be the most annoying current form of secular millenarian eschatology.
  - sp527 3y ago
    You're right. I should have said: "we're in the final stages of any semblance of socioeconomic mobility within a free market system". > “Late-stage capitalism” wishcasting may be the most annoying current form of secular millenarian eschatology. This is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of the pyramid and when not amongst the literally billions of people being crushed at the bottom. You should try putting in 60+ hours of blue collar labor across 3 different jobs just to end up paycheck to paycheck in the slummiest part of a major US city. And that would still be miles better than where most people are at in the rest of the world.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > You're right. I should have said: "we're in the final stages of any semblance of socioeconomic mobility within a free market system". "Free-market system" isn't a thing that actually exists in the real world, but even leaving that aside, no, that's not defensible, either. > > “Late-stage capitalism” wishcasting may be the most annoying current form of secular millenarian eschatology. > This is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of the pyramid and when not amongst the literally billions of people being crushed at the bottom. It's exactly the opposite: eschatological wishcasting doesn't contribute to solving problems; it is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of the pyramid, etc., etc., without any cost, and without any motivation to do something because the problem will be imminently fixed by the teleological design of the universe. > You should try putting in 60+ hours of blue collar labor across 3 different jobs just to end up paycheck to paycheck in the slummiest part of a major US city. And that would still be miles better than where most people are at in the rest of the world. "Lots of people live in crappy conditions" doesn't support either your original or revised description, however true it certainly is, and however much of an urgent problem it is to address.
__loam 3y ago
US leadership was literally asking for this.
- qualifiedai 3y ago
  US leadership seems clueless and they just fell for regulatory capture. Regulate AI applications, not fundamental research in it.
  - __loam 3y ago
    I mostly agree but it is rich considering datasets like LAION were built for research yet are the bedrock of billion dollar companies now.
swatcoder 3y ago
Mature corporations need liability protection in order to operate. As "AI" tools become widespread, they're going to want and then require assurance that liability for using those tools falls on somebody else. A healthy regulatory body provides for that by setting standards and holding the relatively few vendors liable for conformance rather than the countless users. It does interfere with innovation for those vendors doing foundational research, but it enables richly funded innovation in applications. It seems like we're at a point where lots of people want to start working on applications using current/near technology; failure to provide them the liability protections they need is what will stifle practical, commercial innovation and would leave AI applications in the hands of the few specialist technology companies who are confident in their models and have the wealth to absorb any liability issues that arise.
- jjk166 3y ago
  I don't want the companies recklessly operating AIs protected. The capabilities of AI aren't dangerous, only their applications, and those who want to commercialize AI should have to demonstrate that they are using them responsibly. If they're not ready to do that yet, then the field is not mature enough yet to warrant fostering commercialization.
Strilanc 3y ago
You're worried about winning the race. I'm worried the prize is an accidental intelligence explosion killing everyone. A government slamming on their brakes would be the most encouraging thing I've heard all year.
- qualifiedai 3y ago
  "Accidental intelligence explosion" - you have to provide a reasonable argument that this can happen. AIs we have now or currently under development are still just tools in the sense that all agency and consciousness comes solely from human operators. Of course, human operators can be malicious, which is why we should regulate applications of AI, not fundamental research in it.
  - Strilanc 3y ago
    I'm sure you're familiar with the arguments. It's the explicit goal of several AI companies to make something more capable than us at engineering. Once you have that, there's the possibility of very rapid self-reinforcing improvement. If you lose control of something like that, it's game over. GPT4 may not generate world class code, but it does it at a scale and speed unmatched by humanity. Alpha Zero took a week to go from nothing to better than any human in history at Go.
finite_depth 3y ago
[dead]
boringalterego 3y ago
Be glad they didn't put it into DOE. It would be NRC 2.0.
stonogo 3y ago
Name one limitation imposed by this EO or this agency. The word 'limit' doesn't even appear in the article. The limitations recommended in the EO mostly focus around government use of the technology. As for reporting minimums, the ones in the EO are explicitly temporary. Quoting directly: "...shall define, and thereafter update as needed on a regular basis, the set of technical conditions for models and computing clusters that would be subject to the reporting requirements..." "Until such technical conditions are defined, the Secretary shall require compliance with these reporting requirements..." So, my question is: why are you ignoring the actual things happening in favor of complaining about phantoms?

az09mugen 3y ago

You write it like there is litteraly 0 risk. Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible with AI ? Edit : Totally agree with qualifiedai's edit

qualifiedai 3y ago
The risk of AI, is much smaller than the risk of computer graphics or social media. My point is that applications of AI must be regulated, not fundamental research.
- az09mugen 3y ago
  I totally agree with your second point.
- chii 3y ago
  How is it different if the same application can be done without the use of an ai?
andy_xor_andrew 3y ago
> Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible with AI ? Alright, you hooked me in. What are they?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scammers-ai-mimic-voices-loved-ones-in-distress/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scammers-ai-mimic-voices-loved-... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66983194 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66983194
  - rockemsockem 3y ago
    That is not what is being discussed. Those things are already very illegal and we don't need new and novel ways to address them.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      That's exactly what's being discussed? A dramatic reduction in cost and increase in effectiveness of some undesirable behavior is exactly when you should look for new ways to address it. The goal of making things illegal is to prevent their occurrence, and if they get suddenly much cheaper and more effective, then your prior methods of deterring them will no longer work.
      - kanzure 3y ago
        > The goal of making things illegal is to prevent their occurrence. Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from using drugs. Only a person can stop themselves from doing something, that's not something a law does.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        I didn't say all laws are 100% effective, or even greater than 0% effective. I stated why we have laws at all. Pretty wild logic you've got here. Let's try this one: > Making murder illegal didn't stop people from murdering. Only a person can stop themselves from doing something, that's not something a law does. Should we not have rape, murder, arson, or fraud laws?
        pixl97 3y ago
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
You write like there are 0 other countries.
jqpabc123 3y ago
Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible without AI too?
omginternets 3y ago
You need to argue two things: 1. There are risks specific to AI or specifically aggravated by AI (easy) 2. Federal regulation of AI safety will reduce those risks (good luck) When articulating your arguments for point 2, I would recommend addressing the thorny issue of proliferation.
- az09mugen 3y ago
  It's not my job nor I have the imagination or the knowledge to argue 2. But don't you agree at least some legal questions should be asked about this overhype of AI ? Because I don't see any so far. Edit : this is the kind of legal question I was talking about, just learned it now : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38102760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38102760
  - omginternets 3y ago
    >But don't you agree at least some legal questions should be asked about this overhype of AI ? I have trouble answering that question as you've asked it. It seems like we agree on several things, namely: 1. that any technology is subject to worst-case analysis; and, 2. that it is appropriate in principle for law to govern the use of technology. Here's what I'm having trouble unpacking in your question: 1. What are the exact legal questions you think should be asked, and aren't? (N.B. Your link is paywalled, and doesn't seem to refer to a specific legal question) 2. What is it about AI exactly that you think is overhyped, and seem to think I disagree with? I don't have a lot of context to go on, so some of my questions may also contain unwarranted assumptions. I hope you'll point them out :) 1. Have you thought about the difficulties involved in legislating around AI? Specifically, I've found it very difficult to articulate what is and isn't appropriate use of AI with any real precision. Let me give an example. I think we can all agree that "nudifying" photographs of minors is at least in poor taste, if not outright dangerous, and that it is fair game to make this particular usage of technology illegal. However, where do you stand on the idea that regulators should disallow the "nudification" use altogether? I can think of several legitimate (if a bit niche) uses, ranging from the creation of medical diagrams and teaching materials to filming love scenes in mainstream cinema with cloths-on and removing the cloths in post-processing. Do you think it's fair game to disallow these uses? If so, should this be absolute liability or should there be a notion of intent? If you think, as I do, that the technical capability should be unrestricted except insofar as it is employed to illegal ends, then we don't need any new laws. We simply apply the laws against, say, involuntary pornography and sexual exploitation of minors, and the problem is solved from a legal perspective; it is now a job for the executive branch. 2. I would appreciate it if you could speak to the risk of misclassification. Many of the proposed regulations involve training AI systems to monitor other AI systems (or themselves, as with the case of prompt engineering). What happens when the black box makes mistakes? Do we accept that a small number of innocent people will be labeled X by AI? How should the law take this possibility into account? Again, do we accept that legitimate uses are de facto crippled or entirely disabled? That's one outcome I would very much like to avoid. 3. On a macro-scale, how do we deal with the fact that other (perhaps less scrupulous) nations will have access to unrestricted AI? Point 3 is particularly troubling from a regulation perspective, because the penchant of software for proliferation is astronomically higher than that of, say, nuclear weapons. This feels like the 90's crypto export-controls all over again, which is minimally a gigantic waste of resources and maximally a crippling economical vulnerability. P.S.: My friend, it is exactly your job to argue your case when speaking about public issues. The term for this is "civic duty".

therobot24 3y ago

Read the https://www.stateof.ai/ https://www.stateof.ai/ reports or even the Stanford AI Index (https://aiindex.stanford.edu/ https://aiindex.stanford.edu/) reports from the last few years. There's plenty of reason to try to create some limits on AI. It's very likely the proposed limits won't be "random" as you say.

vsareto 3y ago

Better than companies doing their own thing and not having any restrictions or oversight at all. Remember that those companies will get rid of some portion of their workers as soon as they think an AI can do most of that work. Heck, they did layoffs and started hiring again without any advancements. You can't trust companies to self-regulate.

gustavus 3y ago
I'm sure China and Russia and Iran and all those other nations will 100% see the value of artificially restricting their AI efforts as well because of the risk of harm, and be socially responsible global citizens, that won't exploit this edge for thier own geopolitical agenda.
- jprete 3y ago
  China’s government is extremely interested in restricting their AI efforts because they don’t want it to contradict the Communist party.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Yeah people bringing up China as if it's some bastion of freedom in comparison to us are hilarious.
    - gustavus 3y ago
      Soviet man and American man were arguing about which country was more free. The American man said "I am so free I could walk up to the White house right now and scream 'I hate Ronald Reagan he is an incompetent buffoon.' Without getting arrested." The Russian man responded "That is not any more free than me I too could walk up to the Kremlin and scream 'I hate Ronald Reagan he is an incompetent buffoon.' without getting in any trouble."
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      No one did that. That is a straw man. People are less free but govt and institutions aligned with govt are more free.

sp527 3y ago

[flagged]

mistrial9 3y ago
yes and - the FoundationModel approach encases un-duplicatable master-models as central providers with faucets -- perfect fit for technocracy fueled with cash looking for a return.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> we're in the final stages of capitalism This is wrong in the sense that modern mixed economies are already post-capitalist if you take a narrow view of capitalism, and also almost certainly wrong if you take the broader view of capitalism which encompasses the modern mixed economy (say, any system featuring private ownership of the means of production even if the practical exercise of control of owners is constrained by democratically constituted public authority enforcing some views of the common interest.) “Late-stage capitalism” wishcasting may be the most annoying current form of secular millenarian eschatology.
- sp527 3y ago
  You're right. I should have said: "we're in the final stages of any semblance of socioeconomic mobility within a free market system". > “Late-stage capitalism” wishcasting may be the most annoying current form of secular millenarian eschatology. This is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of the pyramid and when not amongst the literally billions of people being crushed at the bottom. You should try putting in 60+ hours of blue collar labor across 3 different jobs just to end up paycheck to paycheck in the slummiest part of a major US city. And that would still be miles better than where most people are at in the rest of the world.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > You're right. I should have said: "we're in the final stages of any semblance of socioeconomic mobility within a free market system". "Free-market system" isn't a thing that actually exists in the real world, but even leaving that aside, no, that's not defensible, either. > > “Late-stage capitalism” wishcasting may be the most annoying current form of secular millenarian eschatology. > This is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of the pyramid and when not amongst the literally billions of people being crushed at the bottom. It's exactly the opposite: eschatological wishcasting doesn't contribute to solving problems; it is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of the pyramid, etc., etc., without any cost, and without any motivation to do something because the problem will be imminently fixed by the teleological design of the universe. > You should try putting in 60+ hours of blue collar labor across 3 different jobs just to end up paycheck to paycheck in the slummiest part of a major US city. And that would still be miles better than where most people are at in the rest of the world. "Lots of people live in crappy conditions" doesn't support either your original or revised description, however true it certainly is, and however much of an urgent problem it is to address.

__loam 3y ago

US leadership was literally asking for this.

qualifiedai 3y ago
US leadership seems clueless and they just fell for regulatory capture. Regulate AI applications, not fundamental research in it.
- __loam 3y ago
  I mostly agree but it is rich considering datasets like LAION were built for research yet are the bedrock of billion dollar companies now.

swatcoder 3y ago

Mature corporations need liability protection in order to operate. As "AI" tools become widespread, they're going to want and then require assurance that liability for using those tools falls on somebody else. A healthy regulatory body provides for that by setting standards and holding the relatively few vendors liable for conformance rather than the countless users. It does interfere with innovation for those vendors doing foundational research, but it enables richly funded innovation in applications. It seems like we're at a point where lots of people want to start working on applications using current/near technology; failure to provide them the liability protections they need is what will stifle practical, commercial innovation and would leave AI applications in the hands of the few specialist technology companies who are confident in their models and have the wealth to absorb any liability issues that arise.

jjk166 3y ago
I don't want the companies recklessly operating AIs protected. The capabilities of AI aren't dangerous, only their applications, and those who want to commercialize AI should have to demonstrate that they are using them responsibly. If they're not ready to do that yet, then the field is not mature enough yet to warrant fostering commercialization.

Strilanc 3y ago

You're worried about winning the race. I'm worried the prize is an accidental intelligence explosion killing everyone. A government slamming on their brakes would be the most encouraging thing I've heard all year.

qualifiedai 3y ago
"Accidental intelligence explosion" - you have to provide a reasonable argument that this can happen. AIs we have now or currently under development are still just tools in the sense that all agency and consciousness comes solely from human operators. Of course, human operators can be malicious, which is why we should regulate applications of AI, not fundamental research in it.
- Strilanc 3y ago
  I'm sure you're familiar with the arguments. It's the explicit goal of several AI companies to make something more capable than us at engineering. Once you have that, there's the possibility of very rapid self-reinforcing improvement. If you lose control of something like that, it's game over. GPT4 may not generate world class code, but it does it at a scale and speed unmatched by humanity. Alpha Zero took a week to go from nothing to better than any human in history at Go.

finite_depth 3y ago

[dead]

boringalterego 3y ago

Be glad they didn't put it into DOE. It would be NRC 2.0.

stonogo 3y ago

Name one limitation imposed by this EO or this agency. The word 'limit' doesn't even appear in the article. The limitations recommended in the EO mostly focus around government use of the technology. As for reporting minimums, the ones in the EO are explicitly temporary. Quoting directly: "...shall define, and thereafter update as needed on a regular basis, the set of technical conditions for models and computing clusters that would be subject to the reporting requirements..." "Until such technical conditions are defined, the Secretary shall require compliance with these reporting requirements..." So, my question is: why are you ignoring the actual things happening in favor of complaining about phantoms?