4 ms·

> regulate AI (read: let a handful of US government aligned closed-source companies have complete monopoly on AI under the guise of ethics) Regulatory capture

> regulate AI (read: let a handful of US government aligned closed-source companies have complete monopoly on AI under the guise of ethics) Regulatory capture would certainly be a bad outcome. Unfortunately, the collateral damage has been to also suppress regulation aimed at making AI safer, advocated by people who are not interested in AI company profits, but rather in arguing that "move fast and break things" is not a safe strategy for building AGI. It's been remarkably effective for the original "move fast and break things" company to attempt to sweep all safety under the rug by claiming that it's all a conspiracy by Big AI to do regulatory capture, and in the process, leave themselves entirely unchecked by anyone.

fallingknife 3y ago
When Sam Altman is calling for AI regulation, yes it is a conspiracy by big AI to do regulatory capture. What is this regulation aimed at making AI safer that you refer to anyway? Because I certainly haven't heard of it. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether or how AI, at a state remotely similar to the level it is at today, is dangerous or how to mitigate that danger. How can you even attempt to regulate in good faith without that?
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  This is coincidentally a ridiculously bad-faith argument, and I think that you know that. The fact that one particular person is advocating for AI regulation does not mean that all calling for AI regulation are doing so due to having the same incentives. This is exactly the point the parent poster is making. It feels like you only skimmed the comment before replying to it.
  - Uehreka 3y ago
    When I talk to folks like GP, they often assert that the non-CEO people who are advocating for AI safety are essentially non-factors, that really the only people whose policy agendas will be enacted are those who already have power, and therefore that the opinions of everyday activists don’t need to be considered when discussing these issues. It’s a darkly nihilistic take that I don’t agree with, but I just wanted to distill it here because I often see people imply it without stating it out loud.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > When Sam Altman is calling for AI regulation Sure; that's almost certainly not being done in good faith. When numerous AI experts and luminaries who left their jobs in AI are advocating for AI regulation, that's much more likely to be being done in good faith. > What is this regulation aimed at making AI safer https://pauseai.info/ https://pauseai.info/ > Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether or how AI, at a state remotely similar to the level it is at today, is dangerous You could also write that as "there's no agreement that AI is safe". But that aside... Most of the arguments about AI safety are not about current AI technology. (There are some reasonable arguments about the use of AI for impersonation, such as that AI-generated content should be labeled as such, but those are much less critical and they aren't the critical part of AI safety.) The most critical arguments about AI safety are not primarily about current technology. They're about near-future expansions of AI capabilities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01933 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01933 > how to mitigate that danger Pause capabilities research until we have proven strategies for aligning AI to human safety. > How can you even attempt to regulate in good faith without that? We don't know that it's safe, many people are arguing that it's dangerous on an unprecedented scale, there are no good refutations of those arguments, and we don't know how to ensure its safety. That's not a situation in which "we shouldn't do anything about it" is a good idea. How can you even attempt to regulate biological weapons research without having a good way to mitigate it? By stopping biological weapons research.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > When numerous AI experts and luminaries who left their jobs in AI are advocating for AI regulation, that's much more likely to be being done in good faith. Their big revelation that they left their jobs over is that AI might be used to usurp identities, which, admittedly, is entirely plausible and arguably already something we're starting to see happen. It is humorous that your takeaway from that is that we need to double down on their identity instead of realizing that identity is a misguided and flawed concept.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      Is it condescending to describe a differing opinion as "humorous?" It came across as quite rude.
AlexandrB 3y ago
I think the whole "AGI safety" debate is a red herring that has taken attention away from the negative externalities of AI as it exists today. Namely, (even more) data collection from users and questions of IP rights around models and their outputs.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  We can do more than one thing at a time. (Or, more to the point, different people can do different things.) We can advocate against misuses of current capabilities, and advocate about the much larger threats of future capabilities.
  - flappyeagle 3y ago
    We really can’t. We are terrible at multitasking.
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      If you look around you’ll see that there are indeed very many people who are doing very different things from one another and without much centralized coordination.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Parent is likely referring to political/mass pressure behind initiatives. In which case the lack of a clear singular message, when confronted with a determined and amoral adversary, dissolves into confusion. Most classically, because the adversary plants PR behind "It's still an open debate among experts." See: cigarettes, climate change
  - Onavo 3y ago
    There's a big fucking difference between people who want to regulate AI because they might become a doomsday terminator paperclip factory (the register-model-with-government-if-they-are-too-big-crowd) and the folks who want to prevent AI being used to indirectly discriminate in hiring and immigration.
atemerev 3y ago
If we are interested in AGI safety, we should experiment with slightly unsafe things before they become hugely unsafe, instead of trying to fix known unknowns while ignoring unknown unknowns. We should open source current small models and observe what different people are actually doing with them. How they abuse it. We will never invent some things on our own.
wruza 3y ago
This regulation can only be done through a clueless government body listening to sneaky AI leaders. Let's make it new healthcare? Premature regulation is the last thing you want. For a bigger pic, it's time for the civilization to realize that speech itself is dangerous and to build something that isn't prone to "someone with <n>M subs said something and it began" that much. Without such transformation, it will get stuck in this era of bs forever. "Safety" is the rug. It hides the wires while the explosives remain armed. You can only three-monkey it for so long.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- celdon25 3y ago
  This seems like an uninformed rant to me. I’m not even sure where you’re trying to go with that. Do you know offhand, approximately what percentage of the White House AI Council members are from the private sector? The government doesn’t need to seek advice from tech bro billionaires.

fallingknife 3y ago

When Sam Altman is calling for AI regulation, yes it is a conspiracy by big AI to do regulatory capture. What is this regulation aimed at making AI safer that you refer to anyway? Because I certainly haven't heard of it. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether or how AI, at a state remotely similar to the level it is at today, is dangerous or how to mitigate that danger. How can you even attempt to regulate in good faith without that?

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
This is coincidentally a ridiculously bad-faith argument, and I think that you know that. The fact that one particular person is advocating for AI regulation does not mean that all calling for AI regulation are doing so due to having the same incentives. This is exactly the point the parent poster is making. It feels like you only skimmed the comment before replying to it.
- Uehreka 3y ago
  When I talk to folks like GP, they often assert that the non-CEO people who are advocating for AI safety are essentially non-factors, that really the only people whose policy agendas will be enacted are those who already have power, and therefore that the opinions of everyday activists don’t need to be considered when discussing these issues. It’s a darkly nihilistic take that I don’t agree with, but I just wanted to distill it here because I often see people imply it without stating it out loud.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> When Sam Altman is calling for AI regulation Sure; that's almost certainly not being done in good faith. When numerous AI experts and luminaries who left their jobs in AI are advocating for AI regulation, that's much more likely to be being done in good faith. > What is this regulation aimed at making AI safer https://pauseai.info/ https://pauseai.info/ > Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether or how AI, at a state remotely similar to the level it is at today, is dangerous You could also write that as "there's no agreement that AI is safe". But that aside... Most of the arguments about AI safety are not about current AI technology. (There are some reasonable arguments about the use of AI for impersonation, such as that AI-generated content should be labeled as such, but those are much less critical and they aren't the critical part of AI safety.) The most critical arguments about AI safety are not primarily about current technology. They're about near-future expansions of AI capabilities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01933 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01933 > how to mitigate that danger Pause capabilities research until we have proven strategies for aligning AI to human safety. > How can you even attempt to regulate in good faith without that? We don't know that it's safe, many people are arguing that it's dangerous on an unprecedented scale, there are no good refutations of those arguments, and we don't know how to ensure its safety. That's not a situation in which "we shouldn't do anything about it" is a good idea. How can you even attempt to regulate biological weapons research without having a good way to mitigate it? By stopping biological weapons research.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > When numerous AI experts and luminaries who left their jobs in AI are advocating for AI regulation, that's much more likely to be being done in good faith. Their big revelation that they left their jobs over is that AI might be used to usurp identities, which, admittedly, is entirely plausible and arguably already something we're starting to see happen. It is humorous that your takeaway from that is that we need to double down on their identity instead of realizing that identity is a misguided and flawed concept.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    Is it condescending to describe a differing opinion as "humorous?" It came across as quite rude.

AlexandrB 3y ago

I think the whole "AGI safety" debate is a red herring that has taken attention away from the negative externalities of AI as it exists today. Namely, (even more) data collection from users and questions of IP rights around models and their outputs.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
We can do more than one thing at a time. (Or, more to the point, different people can do different things.) We can advocate against misuses of current capabilities, and advocate about the much larger threats of future capabilities.
- flappyeagle 3y ago
  We really can’t. We are terrible at multitasking.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    If you look around you’ll see that there are indeed very many people who are doing very different things from one another and without much centralized coordination.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Parent is likely referring to political/mass pressure behind initiatives. In which case the lack of a clear singular message, when confronted with a determined and amoral adversary, dissolves into confusion. Most classically, because the adversary plants PR behind "It's still an open debate among experts." See: cigarettes, climate change
- Onavo 3y ago
  There's a big fucking difference between people who want to regulate AI because they might become a doomsday terminator paperclip factory (the register-model-with-government-if-they-are-too-big-crowd) and the folks who want to prevent AI being used to indirectly discriminate in hiring and immigration.

atemerev 3y ago

If we are interested in AGI safety, we should experiment with slightly unsafe things before they become hugely unsafe, instead of trying to fix known unknowns while ignoring unknown unknowns. We should open source current small models and observe what different people are actually doing with them. How they abuse it. We will never invent some things on our own.

wruza 3y ago

This regulation can only be done through a clueless government body listening to sneaky AI leaders. Let's make it new healthcare? Premature regulation is the last thing you want. For a bigger pic, it's time for the civilization to realize that speech itself is dangerous and to build something that isn't prone to "someone with <n>M subs said something and it began" that much. Without such transformation, it will get stuck in this era of bs forever. "Safety" is the rug. It hides the wires while the explosives remain armed. You can only three-monkey it for so long.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
celdon25 3y ago
This seems like an uninformed rant to me. I’m not even sure where you’re trying to go with that. Do you know offhand, approximately what percentage of the White House AI Council members are from the private sector? The government doesn’t need to seek advice from tech bro billionaires.