4 ms·

I can't stand the "OMG there's a new thing, we need to regulate it" way of thinking. No doubt in my mind the woman in the article doesn't understand much more a

I can't stand the "OMG there's a new thing, we need to regulate it" way of thinking. No doubt in my mind the woman in the article doesn't understand much more about so-called "AI" than Biden.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> Born in India and raised in Texas, Prabhakar has a PhD in applied physics from Caltech and previously ran two US agencies: the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency. She also spent 15 years in Silicon Valley as a venture capitalist, including as president of Interval Research, Paul Allen’s legendary tech incubator, and has served as vice president or chief technology officer at several companies.
PicassoCTs 2y ago
Its in the nature of the beast, the boomer generation, being in the retreat-defeat of retirement, wants things stable, conservative, collapsing inwards at a snails pace. Your point of view has no party running
- moffkalast 2y ago
  The thing is, we do need regulation but not the kind that's being proposed, which appears to be more like regulatory capture by OpenAI & friends to enshrine deep learning at scale as something only verified multinationals with NSA backdoors can do and put up even larger barriers for entry for anyone else. What's needed is practically the exact opposite, a set of rules that prevents work automation to be owned by a select few who will then manipulate the resulting techno-feudalist world with impunity because they need no one else. Things are changing too quickly, the fastest they ever have in the history of man even. Some people are probably preparing to enter a college programme right now to learn something that will be fully automated before they even get their degree.
- ajmurmann 2y ago
  I think it's easier to take arguments more seriously when the statement doesn't generalize across an entire generation.
- krapp 2y ago
  Everyone but psychopaths wants to live in a stable society, conservatism is apparently a trend among the young, and the boomer generation is all but dead at this point. But go off.
  - xboxnolifes 2y ago
    Everyone wants a stable society, but only the naive think you can regulate your way to a truly stable society.
    - krapp 2y ago
      All stable societies are stable due in no small part to regulation in some form or another. I'm guessing by "truly" you mean "perfectly", but of course no such society exists in the real world.
      - xboxnolifes 2y ago
        By truly stable I mean that society changes. You must always have wiggle room. You can't just hammer down every nail the moment it sticks up. Regulates never more fast enough to compensate, so less regulation used to reach a desired outcome the better.
        krapp 2y ago
        But that's exactly what's happening. AI is likely going to change society at every level, in innumerable ways. It's going to be the foundation of our economy. It's going to publish science. It's going to create art and culture. It's going to make legal and medical decisions. It's going to be the primary means by which humans communicate with each other, and with software. It's going to shape people's subjective reality. Maybe. If it has even half of the impact that people expect it to, it seems like a reasonable thing to regulate.
drdaeman 2y ago
> In an instant it became very, very obvious that the United States needed to speed up its efforts to regulate the AI industry And the article says it as if that's some God-given truth... The sad part is that AI won't "break out" and kill all humans aka stop this insanity. Life isn't a fairy^W cyberpunk tale.
go_elmo 2y ago
Laws are made for things that exist. If new things appear, laws might need to be adapted - to be decided by the voters.
ttrashh 2y ago
You read her qualifications and history? You still decided to write this comment?
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  It seems like she has a background in EE and physics, but almost all of her work is policy oriented and not actually hands-on building things, at which point, "when all you have is a hammer" seems relevant. From the article: > [Interviewer:] It’s almost predestined that you’d be in this job. As soon as you got your physics degree at Caltech, you went to DC and got enmeshed in policy.
  - franga2000 2y ago
    I'd be inclined to trust an engineer-turned-policymaker more to decide if and what to do about an emerging technology more than the researchers/engineers developing it or the "entrepreneurs" pushing for its development.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      Sure, but you could probably still find someone with a deep understanding of the tech who is not directly working in the field. Or. Maybe you can't - the article also mentions how the US still lacks a CTO and they've tried to find one for the entire Biden administration. My main issue is that policy makers love to...make policies. Which is exactly what EO14110 is all about. My major concern is that the US is going to box itself in with these regulations, and lose the race to China(or others), and our lives will ultimately be much worse because of it.
  - runako 2y ago
    > hands-on building things My piping hot take is that you want an expert policy builder in a job building policy. So you want someone with a lot of hands-on experience building policy. A senior SWE would have a steep ramp to get qualified for her job, because they do not have hands-on experience building policy. For example: do they have contacts in the relevant organizations? Do they even know what the relevant organizations are? Do relevant Congresspeople know them and listen when they have something to say? None of the relevant skillset involves being hands-on with e.g. Python or vector databases.
nvy 2y ago
This current iteration of "AI", by which I mean LLMs, seems only good at enabling generative spam and disinformation. I think regulations are exactly what's required.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > seems only good at enabling generative spam and disinformation This doesn't seem to make sense. Although it uses the word "disinformation", so perhaps an LLM wrote it.
  - nvy 2y ago
    What about it doesn't make sense to you? LLMs aren't intelligent and the hallucinations problem is fundamental to the technology, and cannot be solved. Therefore definitionally an LLM will never be fully trustworthy. But it's great at generating plausible-sounding stuff, which makes it great for propaganda and disinformation.
    - danielbln 2y ago
      I've implemented many use cases professionally where LLMs sit at the center, from customer support, to document classification, general knowledge management and many more. Personally I use them frequently for coding, to carry out various text based tasks (turning information from one format to another etc). Hallucination can be significantly reduced by injecting knowledge into the request, to the degree that LLM output is suitable for various business use cases. Saying LLMs are not useful for anything but generating spam is objectively wrong, as to disqualify your commenta from serious discussion about the topic. There are many issues with GenAI that are worth discussing, saying they are generally useless is not the way.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > What about it doesn't make sense to you? That you said it was only good for those things. You changed it in this message, as I'm sure you're aware.
- 2y ago
boredpeter 2y ago
[dead]

I can't stand the "OMG there's a new thing, we need to regulate it" way of thinking. No doubt in my mind the woman in the article doesn't understand much more about so-called "AI" than Biden.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

> Born in India and raised in Texas, Prabhakar has a PhD in applied physics from Caltech and previously ran two US agencies: the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency. She also spent 15 years in Silicon Valley as a venture capitalist, including as president of Interval Research, Paul Allen’s legendary tech incubator, and has served as vice president or chief technology officer at several companies.

PicassoCTs 2y ago

Its in the nature of the beast, the boomer generation, being in the retreat-defeat of retirement, wants things stable, conservative, collapsing inwards at a snails pace. Your point of view has no party running

moffkalast 2y ago
The thing is, we do need regulation but not the kind that's being proposed, which appears to be more like regulatory capture by OpenAI & friends to enshrine deep learning at scale as something only verified multinationals with NSA backdoors can do and put up even larger barriers for entry for anyone else. What's needed is practically the exact opposite, a set of rules that prevents work automation to be owned by a select few who will then manipulate the resulting techno-feudalist world with impunity because they need no one else. Things are changing too quickly, the fastest they ever have in the history of man even. Some people are probably preparing to enter a college programme right now to learn something that will be fully automated before they even get their degree.
ajmurmann 2y ago
I think it's easier to take arguments more seriously when the statement doesn't generalize across an entire generation.
krapp 2y ago
Everyone but psychopaths wants to live in a stable society, conservatism is apparently a trend among the young, and the boomer generation is all but dead at this point. But go off.
- xboxnolifes 2y ago
  Everyone wants a stable society, but only the naive think you can regulate your way to a truly stable society.
  - krapp 2y ago
    All stable societies are stable due in no small part to regulation in some form or another. I'm guessing by "truly" you mean "perfectly", but of course no such society exists in the real world.
    - xboxnolifes 2y ago
      By truly stable I mean that society changes. You must always have wiggle room. You can't just hammer down every nail the moment it sticks up. Regulates never more fast enough to compensate, so less regulation used to reach a desired outcome the better.
      - krapp 2y ago
        But that's exactly what's happening. AI is likely going to change society at every level, in innumerable ways. It's going to be the foundation of our economy. It's going to publish science. It's going to create art and culture. It's going to make legal and medical decisions. It's going to be the primary means by which humans communicate with each other, and with software. It's going to shape people's subjective reality. Maybe. If it has even half of the impact that people expect it to, it seems like a reasonable thing to regulate.

drdaeman 2y ago

> In an instant it became very, very obvious that the United States needed to speed up its efforts to regulate the AI industry And the article says it as if that's some God-given truth... The sad part is that AI won't "break out" and kill all humans aka stop this insanity. Life isn't a fairy^W cyberpunk tale.

go_elmo 2y ago

Laws are made for things that exist. If new things appear, laws might need to be adapted - to be decided by the voters.

ttrashh 2y ago

You read her qualifications and history? You still decided to write this comment?

IncreasePosts 2y ago
It seems like she has a background in EE and physics, but almost all of her work is policy oriented and not actually hands-on building things, at which point, "when all you have is a hammer" seems relevant. From the article: > [Interviewer:] It’s almost predestined that you’d be in this job. As soon as you got your physics degree at Caltech, you went to DC and got enmeshed in policy.
- franga2000 2y ago
  I'd be inclined to trust an engineer-turned-policymaker more to decide if and what to do about an emerging technology more than the researchers/engineers developing it or the "entrepreneurs" pushing for its development.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Sure, but you could probably still find someone with a deep understanding of the tech who is not directly working in the field. Or. Maybe you can't - the article also mentions how the US still lacks a CTO and they've tried to find one for the entire Biden administration. My main issue is that policy makers love to...make policies. Which is exactly what EO14110 is all about. My major concern is that the US is going to box itself in with these regulations, and lose the race to China(or others), and our lives will ultimately be much worse because of it.
- runako 2y ago
  > hands-on building things My piping hot take is that you want an expert policy builder in a job building policy. So you want someone with a lot of hands-on experience building policy. A senior SWE would have a steep ramp to get qualified for her job, because they do not have hands-on experience building policy. For example: do they have contacts in the relevant organizations? Do they even know what the relevant organizations are? Do relevant Congresspeople know them and listen when they have something to say? None of the relevant skillset involves being hands-on with e.g. Python or vector databases.

nvy 2y ago

This current iteration of "AI", by which I mean LLMs, seems only good at enabling generative spam and disinformation. I think regulations are exactly what's required.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> seems only good at enabling generative spam and disinformation This doesn't seem to make sense. Although it uses the word "disinformation", so perhaps an LLM wrote it.
- nvy 2y ago
  What about it doesn't make sense to you? LLMs aren't intelligent and the hallucinations problem is fundamental to the technology, and cannot be solved. Therefore definitionally an LLM will never be fully trustworthy. But it's great at generating plausible-sounding stuff, which makes it great for propaganda and disinformation.
  - danielbln 2y ago
    I've implemented many use cases professionally where LLMs sit at the center, from customer support, to document classification, general knowledge management and many more. Personally I use them frequently for coding, to carry out various text based tasks (turning information from one format to another etc). Hallucination can be significantly reduced by injecting knowledge into the request, to the degree that LLM output is suitable for various business use cases. Saying LLMs are not useful for anything but generating spam is objectively wrong, as to disqualify your commenta from serious discussion about the topic. There are many issues with GenAI that are worth discussing, saying they are generally useless is not the way.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > What about it doesn't make sense to you? That you said it was only good for those things. You changed it in this message, as I'm sure you're aware.
2y ago

boredpeter 2y ago

[dead]