4 ms·

Why would we care about these "AI Safety Orgs?" As a developer, do I need their certification or is it like a MADD situation where we if we don't observe and d

Why would we care about these "AI Safety Orgs?" As a developer, do I need their certification or is it like a MADD situation where we if we don't observe and diminish their appeal/growth we will get laws with draconian measures that only benefit the big players? e.g. a PAC? (Don't get me wrong, drunk driving is "bad", but for a group like MADD to exist, eh and meh.) As of now, there is no need to really submit these these safety orgs, so as long as we don't care for their approval - who cares, right? Or is the optics far gone now that these orgs control the conversation? Also, fun question: with AI safety orgs now attempting to police - who really polices the police / do other orgs/countries have the same rules, safety and artificial guard rails?

lmeyerov 3y ago
MADD on one end that limit work at all, and SOC2/ISO/NIST style compliance limitations on the other that chill work in practice. I'm more worried about the latter as already starting to bias project & funding decisions in fintechs & various govs we work with. Both a concrete practical concern today, and economics & law are generally tied in theory anyways.
gryn 3y ago
the fear is that they delusions become law. Sam Altman already tried that last year. look at how technically competent your average politician / congressman / law maker and extrapolate how easy it is to make them think that if they don't ban unlicensed use of AI great danger is ahead. the rule will be in favor of already existing large companies like OpenAI, google, Microsoft, etc ... if you're an open source contributor to AI you will be vilified as some nefarious hacker who's trying to destroy the world. they are using all kind of tactics until they find the one that sticks (and eventually they will), anthropomorphize AI when talking about it, fearmongering about some rogue super AI, war scenarios about AI falling in the hands of 'china', analogies with weapons of mass destruction, think about the children style rhetorics, it will take your jobs, suddenly caring about copyright, etc...

lmeyerov 3y ago

MADD on one end that limit work at all, and SOC2/ISO/NIST style compliance limitations on the other that chill work in practice. I'm more worried about the latter as already starting to bias project & funding decisions in fintechs & various govs we work with. Both a concrete practical concern today, and economics & law are generally tied in theory anyways.

gryn 3y ago

the fear is that they delusions become law. Sam Altman already tried that last year. look at how technically competent your average politician / congressman / law maker and extrapolate how easy it is to make them think that if they don't ban unlicensed use of AI great danger is ahead. the rule will be in favor of already existing large companies like OpenAI, google, Microsoft, etc ... if you're an open source contributor to AI you will be vilified as some nefarious hacker who's trying to destroy the world. they are using all kind of tactics until they find the one that sticks (and eventually they will), anthropomorphize AI when talking about it, fearmongering about some rogue super AI, war scenarios about AI falling in the hands of 'china', analogies with weapons of mass destruction, think about the children style rhetorics, it will take your jobs, suddenly caring about copyright, etc...