4 ms·

This bill sounds unbelievably stupid. If passed, it will just result in a migration of AI projects out of California, save a few which are already tied to the E

This bill sounds unbelievably stupid. If passed, it will just result in a migration of AI projects out of California, save a few which are already tied to the EA movement. I'm not under the impression that the EA movement is better suited to steward AI development than other groups, but even assuming they were, there is no chance for an initiative like this to work unless every country agreed to it and followed it.

echelon 3y ago
Honestly it would be good for AI if it left California. California has too much regulatory burden and taxation.
- kbenson 3y ago
  My initial interpretation of this is along the lines of "this very contentious thing that many people are afraid will cause lots of problems if not handled carefully with checks and balances should move out of the current place it's generally being done that cares a lot about and puts a lot of checks and balances into place, because they have too many." Am I jumping to conclusions and is there a different interpretation you think I should be coming away with?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    That interpretation isn't necessarily unmeritorious. Suppose you have a place with Level 7 checks and balances and people are content to live under them. If you dial it up to 9, then they move to a place at Level 2, which otherwise wouldn't have been worth it because of other trade offs. So the new rules don't take you from Level 7 to Level 9, they take you from Level 7 to Level 2. But there is also another interpretation, which is that the new thing is going to happen in whatever place has the least stringent rules anyway, so more stringent rules don't improve safety, they just deprive your jurisdiction of any potential rewards from keeping the activity local, and provide people in other jurisdictions the benefit of the influx of people you're inducing to leave.
    - kbenson 3y ago
      So, obviously there is also interpreting that statement in a vacuum, which I sort of did, and interpreting it as a criticism of this current proposal. I think it's slightly ambiguous what was meant, even given it's location, because it seemed like a general sentiment and not specific to this proposal. I'm not sure in the general context your first came is super applicable, given that there's a lot of exposure and worry about this topic. Laws and regulation can apply to use as well as development, and large markets can have outsized effects when they require things (such as how CA emissions laws and GDPR have), and I'm not sure worrying about chasing away business is a worthwhile concern when many people are very afraid of a societal consequences of the thing in question. For what it's worth I don't really follow the same stance when it comes to military technology, because that's meant to be used in a situation when local (which in that case can be national) laws have little or no sway, but I'm open to arguments about how viewing them differently isn't useful.
- coffeebeqn 3y ago
  Why did it happen in the Bay Area in the first place then? People love to hate on CA but it sure seems to keep producing interesting products that the rest of the world cannot.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    People that complain about “regulatory burden” and “taxation” don’t have any specific complaints, just vague platitudes that may or may not be true depending on what you’re talking about. It doesn’t make any sense to talk about the number of regulations. What matters is what those regulations are. Likewise, it doesn’t make sense to talk about the amount of taxation without talking about who is being taxed.
mquander 3y ago
The bill doesn't give special treatment to "EA" models, so what does it matter whether projects are tied to EA or whether EAs are good stewards? Either it's a good law or it isn't. At a glance it looks like it's not going to affect AI projects that are basically consumers of existing models, which is most projects.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  I suspect the "EA" label is author having an ax to grind or throwing red meat at people who already hate EA. Sam Altman is on record lobbying for "AI safety laws" which would have a similar effect of raising the bar of entry incredibly high using legal peril, and he was reportedly ousted from the board by EA-aligned folk.
  - ShamelessC 3y ago
    With all due respect, the people on HN are _weirdly_ in favor of a group whose unstated “zeroth” tenet is basically “be born into wealth, get extremely lucky, disregard common criticism of capitalism, reframe libertarianism if you need. Then and only then can you begin your righteous mission of donating your money “effectively”. Could you at least consider that the group’s entire premise seems like nothing more than the post hoc rationalization of a bunch of wealthy educated elites with low social and emotional intelligence? The levels of tone deaf I perceive as someone who doesn’t have, can’t have that much wealth to even begin my journey in their little club are enormous. There’s very little that is subtle about it and it’s frankly offensive and _clearly_ used as a justification for insecure Bay Area “liberals” who find themselves with lots of money and a political identity that makes them insecure about that fact. The answer? You’re actually saving mankind with your money! It’s just simple Bayesian logic! The same thing that got you here! (Spoiler alert: it was more to do with luck than skill). If you’re on board, I guess it’s not as offensive? But for me and others, it’s like elites trying to brag about how great they are while the rest of us fight for scraps. So when you see someone with an axe to grind, maybe consider that EA’s messaging is not as universally appealing as you think, and may even be outright tone deaf enough to cause one to reasonably find it disgusting. > and he was reportedly ousted from the board by EA-aligned folk. It seems naive to me to assume that members of EA in positions of power don’t secretly have their own motivations. Furthermore it’s not very “Bayesian” to assume that a implies b here with so many hidden variables at play.
fulafel 2y ago
Regarding "otherwise they'll just move" - yes it's a collective action problem. But usually the solution to these is not just to give up, if it's a big problem. The international policy approach is usually to DTRT at home and work on treaties internationally (or other policy tools, stick and carrot etc). Also, from a moral philosophy point of view, "this is wrong but if we don't do it, someone else will collect the profits and the bad thing will happen anyway - hence we'll do this wrong thing" is not sound. Applied generally it would lead to a lot of bad stuff (moral race to the bottom).
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  I generally agree, but really think AI is different with regards to the stakes being (at least viewed by many as) higher than any other field of research. Whether or not you believe this is the case with AI is not what I'm getting at, but a lot of people believe AI has the potential to cause more damage than nuclear weaponry technology, as well as the potential to suspend aging, end all natural causes of death, regrow limbs, fix any bodily ailments. There will be countries that embrace AI out of potential for the latter, and capitalists who do their capitalist thing and make as much money off of the perceived latent power. There is no prospect of achieving a truly international consensus (meaning applied the same way by every country, we don't even have that with copyright, though that's the closest example I can think of) on AI policy. Given that, do you really think the U.S. is going to sit by and watch as the majority of AI research is conducted in other countries?

echelon 3y ago

Honestly it would be good for AI if it left California. California has too much regulatory burden and taxation.

kbenson 3y ago
My initial interpretation of this is along the lines of "this very contentious thing that many people are afraid will cause lots of problems if not handled carefully with checks and balances should move out of the current place it's generally being done that cares a lot about and puts a lot of checks and balances into place, because they have too many." Am I jumping to conclusions and is there a different interpretation you think I should be coming away with?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  That interpretation isn't necessarily unmeritorious. Suppose you have a place with Level 7 checks and balances and people are content to live under them. If you dial it up to 9, then they move to a place at Level 2, which otherwise wouldn't have been worth it because of other trade offs. So the new rules don't take you from Level 7 to Level 9, they take you from Level 7 to Level 2. But there is also another interpretation, which is that the new thing is going to happen in whatever place has the least stringent rules anyway, so more stringent rules don't improve safety, they just deprive your jurisdiction of any potential rewards from keeping the activity local, and provide people in other jurisdictions the benefit of the influx of people you're inducing to leave.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    So, obviously there is also interpreting that statement in a vacuum, which I sort of did, and interpreting it as a criticism of this current proposal. I think it's slightly ambiguous what was meant, even given it's location, because it seemed like a general sentiment and not specific to this proposal. I'm not sure in the general context your first came is super applicable, given that there's a lot of exposure and worry about this topic. Laws and regulation can apply to use as well as development, and large markets can have outsized effects when they require things (such as how CA emissions laws and GDPR have), and I'm not sure worrying about chasing away business is a worthwhile concern when many people are very afraid of a societal consequences of the thing in question. For what it's worth I don't really follow the same stance when it comes to military technology, because that's meant to be used in a situation when local (which in that case can be national) laws have little or no sway, but I'm open to arguments about how viewing them differently isn't useful.
coffeebeqn 3y ago
Why did it happen in the Bay Area in the first place then? People love to hate on CA but it sure seems to keep producing interesting products that the rest of the world cannot.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  People that complain about “regulatory burden” and “taxation” don’t have any specific complaints, just vague platitudes that may or may not be true depending on what you’re talking about. It doesn’t make any sense to talk about the number of regulations. What matters is what those regulations are. Likewise, it doesn’t make sense to talk about the amount of taxation without talking about who is being taxed.

mquander 3y ago

The bill doesn't give special treatment to "EA" models, so what does it matter whether projects are tied to EA or whether EAs are good stewards? Either it's a good law or it isn't. At a glance it looks like it's not going to affect AI projects that are basically consumers of existing models, which is most projects.

sangnoir 3y ago
I suspect the "EA" label is author having an ax to grind or throwing red meat at people who already hate EA. Sam Altman is on record lobbying for "AI safety laws" which would have a similar effect of raising the bar of entry incredibly high using legal peril, and he was reportedly ousted from the board by EA-aligned folk.
- ShamelessC 3y ago
  With all due respect, the people on HN are _weirdly_ in favor of a group whose unstated “zeroth” tenet is basically “be born into wealth, get extremely lucky, disregard common criticism of capitalism, reframe libertarianism if you need. Then and only then can you begin your righteous mission of donating your money “effectively”. Could you at least consider that the group’s entire premise seems like nothing more than the post hoc rationalization of a bunch of wealthy educated elites with low social and emotional intelligence? The levels of tone deaf I perceive as someone who doesn’t have, can’t have that much wealth to even begin my journey in their little club are enormous. There’s very little that is subtle about it and it’s frankly offensive and _clearly_ used as a justification for insecure Bay Area “liberals” who find themselves with lots of money and a political identity that makes them insecure about that fact. The answer? You’re actually saving mankind with your money! It’s just simple Bayesian logic! The same thing that got you here! (Spoiler alert: it was more to do with luck than skill). If you’re on board, I guess it’s not as offensive? But for me and others, it’s like elites trying to brag about how great they are while the rest of us fight for scraps. So when you see someone with an axe to grind, maybe consider that EA’s messaging is not as universally appealing as you think, and may even be outright tone deaf enough to cause one to reasonably find it disgusting. > and he was reportedly ousted from the board by EA-aligned folk. It seems naive to me to assume that members of EA in positions of power don’t secretly have their own motivations. Furthermore it’s not very “Bayesian” to assume that a implies b here with so many hidden variables at play.

fulafel 2y ago

Regarding "otherwise they'll just move" - yes it's a collective action problem. But usually the solution to these is not just to give up, if it's a big problem. The international policy approach is usually to DTRT at home and work on treaties internationally (or other policy tools, stick and carrot etc). Also, from a moral philosophy point of view, "this is wrong but if we don't do it, someone else will collect the profits and the bad thing will happen anyway - hence we'll do this wrong thing" is not sound. Applied generally it would lead to a lot of bad stuff (moral race to the bottom).

pcthrowaway 2y ago
I generally agree, but really think AI is different with regards to the stakes being (at least viewed by many as) higher than any other field of research. Whether or not you believe this is the case with AI is not what I'm getting at, but a lot of people believe AI has the potential to cause more damage than nuclear weaponry technology, as well as the potential to suspend aging, end all natural causes of death, regrow limbs, fix any bodily ailments. There will be countries that embrace AI out of potential for the latter, and capitalists who do their capitalist thing and make as much money off of the perceived latent power. There is no prospect of achieving a truly international consensus (meaning applied the same way by every country, we don't even have that with copyright, though that's the closest example I can think of) on AI policy. Given that, do you really think the U.S. is going to sit by and watch as the majority of AI research is conducted in other countries?