4 ms·

> requires you to follow best practices (to be determined) Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. It's indicative of an ov

> requires you to follow best practices (to be determined) Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. It's indicative of an over-active immune system; lawmakers with nothing better to do. Pass laws against improper use and go after the malicious users. Don't ban the technology, the research, or even the applications. (Of which there will be abundant good uses. Many of which we've yet to even see or predict.) Our culture has become obsessed with regulating and limiting freedom on the very principle that it might be harmful. We should be punishing actual measurable, physical and monetary harms. Not imaginary or hypothetical ones. If California passes this, AI companies should leave California behind.

realce 3y ago
> Don't ban the technology, the research, or even the applications. Where is the ban here?
- echelon 3y ago
  Some highlights from the text of the bill [1], > Other relief as the court deems appropriate, including monetary damages damages, including punitive damages, to persons aggrieved aggrieved, punitive damages, and an order for the full shutdown of a covered model. > A civil penalty in an amount not exceeding 10 percent of the cost, excluding labor cost, to develop the covered model for a first violation and in an amount not exceeding 30 percent of the cost, excluding labor cost, to develop the covered model for any subsequent violation. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1047 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
sanxiyn 3y ago
That's like saying we should punish when bridge collapses, before that any bridge should be able to be built. You can argue that, but not many will agree.
- sgift 3y ago
  Because we know how to build bridges so that they don't collapse. The laws of physics that govern bridge-building are well known. The equivalent for AI systems? Not really.
  - sanxiyn 3y ago
    Best practices will say things like "you should test it". While we are ignorant, there are just many reasonable things to do. Human biology is not completely understood, but that does not mean medical checklists are useless.
    - Auracle 3y ago
      Test it how? What makes it fail? The ability to tell people how to make a bomb? Being able to say what (few) good things Hitler accomplished for Germany? Giving medical advice? Where’s the line?
      - sanxiyn 3y ago
        One thing law explicitly says is full shutdown capability. So it should be tested whether it can autonomously hack computers on the internet and propagate itself. In fact Anthropic tested this. See https://metr.org/ https://metr.org/ for more.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    We don't know how to make safe AI systems, so we should be more cavalier and anything-goes than if we did? Madness.
    - sgift 3y ago
      We don't know if there's even any danger. All statements so far of any danger are somewhere between science-fiction stories and anthropomorphizing AI as some kind of god. The equivalent of "if the bridge breaks down, someone can be hurt", namely a real, quantifiable danger is sorely lacking here.
tyingq 3y ago
>Pass laws against improper use and go after the malicious users. I think they are having to deal with things like sales to countries outside of their legal reach. So, while I understand the tack here, there's probably more to it than this.
spamizbad 3y ago
> Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. Of little concern in the US legal system. Might be problematic in the EU perhaps, but in the United States the courts have consistently been tremendously deferential to the interests of small and large businesses vs consumers.
ryandrake 3y ago
> Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. It's indicative of an over-active immune system; lawmakers with nothing better to do. I guess they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We constantly complain about slow lawmaking, "Look at how out of touch Congress are! XYZ technology is moving so fast, and they're always 10-20 years behind!" Finally, someone is actually on the ball and up-to-date with a current technology, and now the other complainers complain that they're jumping the gun and regulating too soon. Lawmakers can't win.
- echelon 3y ago
  > We constantly complain about slow lawmaking I don't think I've ever complained about slow lawmaking. I've complained about a lack of rights and a lack of enshrined rights.

realce 3y ago

> Don't ban the technology, the research, or even the applications. Where is the ban here?

echelon 3y ago
Some highlights from the text of the bill [1], > Other relief as the court deems appropriate, including monetary damages damages, including punitive damages, to persons aggrieved aggrieved, punitive damages, and an order for the full shutdown of a covered model. > A civil penalty in an amount not exceeding 10 percent of the cost, excluding labor cost, to develop the covered model for a first violation and in an amount not exceeding 30 percent of the cost, excluding labor cost, to develop the covered model for any subsequent violation. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1047 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

sanxiyn 3y ago

That's like saying we should punish when bridge collapses, before that any bridge should be able to be built. You can argue that, but not many will agree.

sgift 3y ago
Because we know how to build bridges so that they don't collapse. The laws of physics that govern bridge-building are well known. The equivalent for AI systems? Not really.
- sanxiyn 3y ago
  Best practices will say things like "you should test it". While we are ignorant, there are just many reasonable things to do. Human biology is not completely understood, but that does not mean medical checklists are useless.
  - Auracle 3y ago
    Test it how? What makes it fail? The ability to tell people how to make a bomb? Being able to say what (few) good things Hitler accomplished for Germany? Giving medical advice? Where’s the line?
    - sanxiyn 3y ago
      One thing law explicitly says is full shutdown capability. So it should be tested whether it can autonomously hack computers on the internet and propagate itself. In fact Anthropic tested this. See https://metr.org/ https://metr.org/ for more.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  We don't know how to make safe AI systems, so we should be more cavalier and anything-goes than if we did? Madness.
  - sgift 3y ago
    We don't know if there's even any danger. All statements so far of any danger are somewhere between science-fiction stories and anthropomorphizing AI as some kind of god. The equivalent of "if the bridge breaks down, someone can be hurt", namely a real, quantifiable danger is sorely lacking here.

tyingq 3y ago

>Pass laws against improper use and go after the malicious users. I think they are having to deal with things like sales to countries outside of their legal reach. So, while I understand the tack here, there's probably more to it than this.

spamizbad 3y ago

> Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. Of little concern in the US legal system. Might be problematic in the EU perhaps, but in the United States the courts have consistently been tremendously deferential to the interests of small and large businesses vs consumers.

ryandrake 3y ago

> Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing. It's indicative of an over-active immune system; lawmakers with nothing better to do. I guess they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We constantly complain about slow lawmaking, "Look at how out of touch Congress are! XYZ technology is moving so fast, and they're always 10-20 years behind!" Finally, someone is actually on the ball and up-to-date with a current technology, and now the other complainers complain that they're jumping the gun and regulating too soon. Lawmakers can't win.

echelon 3y ago
> We constantly complain about slow lawmaking I don't think I've ever complained about slow lawmaking. I've complained about a lack of rights and a lack of enshrined rights.