6 ms·

That’s like saying a sports game doesn’t need a referee because players should follow the rules. At times you perhaps don’t follow them as close because you’re

That’s like saying a sports game doesn’t need a referee because players should follow the rules. At times you perhaps don’t follow them as close because you’re too caught up. So it’s nice to have a party that oversees it.

unglaublich 3y ago
The current analogy is sports teams selecting their own referees.
- lewhoo 3y ago
  A good argument for independent regulation/oversight.
  - Mountain_Skies 3y ago
    Independent is the tricky part. AI companies already are asking for government regulation but how independent would that regulation really be?
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      As independent as any other government oversight/regulation in the US, it'd either be directly run or heavily influenced by those being regulated.
      - nyokodo 3y ago
        > it'd either be directly run or heavily influenced by those being regulated. Which is also the probable fate of an AGI super intelligence being regulated by humans.
        medstrom 3y ago
        You misunderstand AGI. AGI won't be controllable, it'd be like ants building a fence around a human thinking it'll keep him in.
        _heimdall 3y ago
        If we actually create an AGI, it will view us much like we view other animals/insects/plants. People often get wrapped up around an AGI's incentive structure and what intentions it will have, but IMO we have just as much chance of controlling it as wild rabbits have controlling humans. It will be a massive leap in intelligence, likely with concepts and ways of understanding reality that either never considered or aren't capable of. Again, that's *if* we make an AGI not these LLM machine learning algorithms being paraded around as AI.
      - fho 3y ago
        Not an economist, but that does not sound bad in general. Best case you have several companies that: (a) have the knowledge to make sensible rulings and (b) have an interest that non of their direct competitors gain any unfair advantages.
        pixl97 3y ago
        The problem case is when the companies all have a backroom meeting and go "Hey, lets ask for regulation X that hurts us some... but hurts everyone else way more"
        _heimdall 3y ago
        Economists actually shouldn't even be included in regulatory considerations in my opinion. If they are then regulators must be balancing the regulation that on its own seems necessary with the economic impact of proper regulation. It hasn't worked for the airline industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or big tech to name a few. I don't think its wise for us to keep trying the same strategy.
Kalium 3y ago
One key question is if the teams are being effective referees or just people titled "referee". If it's the latter, then getting rid of them does not seem like a loss.
joenot443 3y ago
Curling famously doesn’t have referees because players follow the rules. It wouldn’t work in all sports, but it’s a big part of curling culture.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  So what happens if the teams disagree on whether a rule was broken? The entire point of a referee is that it's supposed to be an impartial authority.
  - joenot443 3y ago
    The assistant captains (usually called vices) on each team are the arbiters. It’s in one’s best interest to keep the game moving and not get bogged in frivolities, there’s a bit of a “tie goes to the runner” heuristic when deciding on violations. In my years of curling, I’ve never seen a disagreement on rules left unsettled between the vices, but my understanding is that one would refer to vices on the neighboring sheets for their opinion, acting as a stand-in impartial authority. In Olympic level play I do believe there are referees to avoid this, but I really can’t overstate how unusual that is for any other curlers.
- esoterica 3y ago
  It’s also a zero stakes sport that nobody watches and involves barely any money so there is less incentive to cheat.
mrits 3y ago
You usually don’t have a referee in sports. 99% of the time it’s practice or pickup games

unglaublich 3y ago

The current analogy is sports teams selecting their own referees.

lewhoo 3y ago
A good argument for independent regulation/oversight.
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  Independent is the tricky part. AI companies already are asking for government regulation but how independent would that regulation really be?
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    As independent as any other government oversight/regulation in the US, it'd either be directly run or heavily influenced by those being regulated.
    - nyokodo 3y ago
      > it'd either be directly run or heavily influenced by those being regulated. Which is also the probable fate of an AGI super intelligence being regulated by humans.
      - medstrom 3y ago
        You misunderstand AGI. AGI won't be controllable, it'd be like ants building a fence around a human thinking it'll keep him in.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        If we actually create an AGI, it will view us much like we view other animals/insects/plants. People often get wrapped up around an AGI's incentive structure and what intentions it will have, but IMO we have just as much chance of controlling it as wild rabbits have controlling humans. It will be a massive leap in intelligence, likely with concepts and ways of understanding reality that either never considered or aren't capable of. Again, that's *if* we make an AGI not these LLM machine learning algorithms being paraded around as AI.
    - fho 3y ago
      Not an economist, but that does not sound bad in general. Best case you have several companies that: (a) have the knowledge to make sensible rulings and (b) have an interest that non of their direct competitors gain any unfair advantages.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        The problem case is when the companies all have a backroom meeting and go "Hey, lets ask for regulation X that hurts us some... but hurts everyone else way more"
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        Economists actually shouldn't even be included in regulatory considerations in my opinion. If they are then regulators must be balancing the regulation that on its own seems necessary with the economic impact of proper regulation. It hasn't worked for the airline industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or big tech to name a few. I don't think its wise for us to keep trying the same strategy.

Kalium 3y ago

One key question is if the teams are being effective referees or just people titled "referee". If it's the latter, then getting rid of them does not seem like a loss.

joenot443 3y ago

Curling famously doesn’t have referees because players follow the rules. It wouldn’t work in all sports, but it’s a big part of curling culture.

fluoridation 3y ago
So what happens if the teams disagree on whether a rule was broken? The entire point of a referee is that it's supposed to be an impartial authority.
- joenot443 3y ago
  The assistant captains (usually called vices) on each team are the arbiters. It’s in one’s best interest to keep the game moving and not get bogged in frivolities, there’s a bit of a “tie goes to the runner” heuristic when deciding on violations. In my years of curling, I’ve never seen a disagreement on rules left unsettled between the vices, but my understanding is that one would refer to vices on the neighboring sheets for their opinion, acting as a stand-in impartial authority. In Olympic level play I do believe there are referees to avoid this, but I really can’t overstate how unusual that is for any other curlers.
esoterica 3y ago
It’s also a zero stakes sport that nobody watches and involves barely any money so there is less incentive to cheat.

mrits 3y ago

You usually don’t have a referee in sports. 99% of the time it’s practice or pickup games