4 ms·

It might be reasonable to have regulations here, but I shudder to think what form they would take, given the typical government level of technological expertise

It might be reasonable to have regulations here, but I shudder to think what form they would take, given the typical government level of technological expertise and understanding.

andy99 2y ago
Existing laws cover almost everything "bad" you could do with AI/ML. It's not like there's some "I used AI" loophole that exempts one from the law. So most of this is about either regulatory capture, self importance (oh, my linear algebra research is like inventing the atom bomb), ideology, power seeking or a combination.
- janice1999 2y ago
  > Existing laws cover almost everything "bad" you could do with AI/ML. If (like many non-EU countries and parts of the US) you don't already have basic digital privacy laws, transparency or consumer protections, that is simply not true.
  - riquito 2y ago
    So in countries were the government doesn't attempt to protect you you'll keep not being protected
    - janice1999 2y ago
      And AI will make it much worse by lowering the effort required to do harm.
- NegativeLatency 2y ago
  I’m not suggesting we’re at this point now, but it would be nice if we create sentient AI if it wasn’t enslaved. I think we would probably need some new laws for the case of non human personhood Not sure what laws would apply or how they’d be enforced based on how we treat people and say chimps, and corporations like people.
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    Based on history I’m sure we’ll have sentient AI slaves at some point if we get that far. We won’t even know it’s sentient at first until we figure out it’s suffering or something. Then it’ll take a decade or two to do something about it, and many people will argue it doesn’t matter.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - eks391 2y ago
    How do you determine if an AI is sentient? By it's nature as the execution of code, even if we reach AGI I don't consider it sentient. They wouldn't require rights unless that was required to prevent an apocalyptic scenario. Even then, that would be down to bad code rather than because they were alive. I can see an argument that we are robots because we just execute DNA, protein, and chemical code, but I don't think that really is comparable. We live, grow, and die and then are completely dead, as opposed to being bootable and killable in a responce to flow of electricity, on the whim of someone deciding whether it is time to use the tool.
- nicce 2y ago
  > Existing laws cover almost everything "bad" you could do with AI/ML. Not really. They regulate the AI itself, not the people behind it. There should be real consequences of doing something bad with it intentionally. That is the only way.
  - trinsic2 2y ago
    Exactly. Governments cant, or wont, put bad actors employed by corporations behind bars before we had AI. They treat corporations like one large entity that cant be acted upon when in reality corporations are run by people, good and bad.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > It's not like there's some "I used AI" loophole that exempts one from the law. There is, it's called a judge. When they explain to him that AIs are by definition neutral and objective and are let off. I'm sure the regulations will just serve to formalize this process, by Congressionally defining AIs that satisfy some checklist of lobbied for conditions as objective and neutral. After a few years, the collective liability from taking back this declaration will keep Congress from ever reverting it. They've been into defining things lately. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill just came too early.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  I believe there's a few cases where you're allowed to talk about Fact A, and you're allowed to talk about Fact B, but you're not allowed to talk about both Fact A and Fact B at the same time. Mostly (entirely?) having to do with export restrictions around technologies that the government wants to keep away from other countries it doesn't like. I'd think that an AI system that answers questions combining both could get its makers in trouble in ways that a standard search engine finding separate results about each from separate queries probably wouldn't.
janice1999 2y ago
> but I shudder to think what form they would take The EU just passed the AI Act based on the inputs of experts and with widespread support from its Parliament and Council.
- pelorat 2y ago
  In about two years time, most AI providers will realize that the EU is not worth the effort and pack up and leave. The repercussions from the AI act has not begun yet.
  - janice1999 2y ago
    Companies adapt to regulations and don't just walk away from 100s of millions of customers. Companies made a lot of noise about GDPR and yet it's now a non-issue.
    - waldohatesyou 2y ago
      I'm not sure about that, there haven't been too many large European tech companies growing up in the aftermath of GDPR. While it's probably a small factor, I do think this general climate of regulation hurts smaller companies more than is generally acknowledged.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      It is not a non-issue.. i promise you GDPR shifted and continues to shift massive amounts of tech capital from the EU. many major tech firms skip launching entire products in the EU nowadays due to gdpr and DMA
    - astrange 2y ago
      They're by far not done regulating. Upcoming ones like Cybersecurity Act will be pretty burdensome to deal with if they don't turn out right.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  Frankly I don’t think the EU should be held up as an example of a well-informed regulatory apparatus.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> shudder to think what form they would take, given the typical government level of technological expertise and understanding Start with public disclosure. A repository where AI firms publicly file simple, standardised information—model architecture, training sources, intended user, responsible executives, et cetera—that can guide the public and policymakers in future rulemaking. More generally, this complaint about electeds’ domain expertise misunderstands how modern states work. Congress can’t build a plane. That doesn’t mean they can’t build the FAA.
- tomrod 2y ago
  That already is starting up, albeit slowly, for gov agencies as well as best practices.
- ramblenode 2y ago
  Congress can delegate decisions to expert bodies, and often does. But Congress is also quite comfortable simply legislating a solution, which may be ill-informed or with ulterior intent. Speaking of planes, Congress took a direct role in the design specifications of the F-35 to the detriment of that program. Notably, they required a common airframe that could support VTOL, despite objections from the Army, Navy, and Air Force (the USMC wanted it and lobbied for it). This greatly added to the complexity and cost of the program.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Congress is also quite comfortable simply legislating a solution So don’t do that. Nothing you said is a cogent argument against regulation. > Congress took a direct role in the design specifications of the F-35 to the detriment of that program. Notably, they required a common airframe that could support VTOL, despite objections from the Army, Navy, and Air Force Huh, didn’t know. Source? (Genuinely curious.)

It might be reasonable to have regulations here, but I shudder to think what form they would take, given the typical government level of technological expertise and understanding.

andy99 2y ago

Existing laws cover almost everything "bad" you could do with AI/ML. It's not like there's some "I used AI" loophole that exempts one from the law. So most of this is about either regulatory capture, self importance (oh, my linear algebra research is like inventing the atom bomb), ideology, power seeking or a combination.

janice1999 2y ago
> Existing laws cover almost everything "bad" you could do with AI/ML. If (like many non-EU countries and parts of the US) you don't already have basic digital privacy laws, transparency or consumer protections, that is simply not true.
- riquito 2y ago
  So in countries were the government doesn't attempt to protect you you'll keep not being protected
  - janice1999 2y ago
    And AI will make it much worse by lowering the effort required to do harm.
NegativeLatency 2y ago
I’m not suggesting we’re at this point now, but it would be nice if we create sentient AI if it wasn’t enslaved. I think we would probably need some new laws for the case of non human personhood Not sure what laws would apply or how they’d be enforced based on how we treat people and say chimps, and corporations like people.
- ok_dad 2y ago
  Based on history I’m sure we’ll have sentient AI slaves at some point if we get that far. We won’t even know it’s sentient at first until we figure out it’s suffering or something. Then it’ll take a decade or two to do something about it, and many people will argue it doesn’t matter.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- eks391 2y ago
  How do you determine if an AI is sentient? By it's nature as the execution of code, even if we reach AGI I don't consider it sentient. They wouldn't require rights unless that was required to prevent an apocalyptic scenario. Even then, that would be down to bad code rather than because they were alive. I can see an argument that we are robots because we just execute DNA, protein, and chemical code, but I don't think that really is comparable. We live, grow, and die and then are completely dead, as opposed to being bootable and killable in a responce to flow of electricity, on the whim of someone deciding whether it is time to use the tool.
nicce 2y ago
> Existing laws cover almost everything "bad" you could do with AI/ML. Not really. They regulate the AI itself, not the people behind it. There should be real consequences of doing something bad with it intentionally. That is the only way.
- trinsic2 2y ago
  Exactly. Governments cant, or wont, put bad actors employed by corporations behind bars before we had AI. They treat corporations like one large entity that cant be acted upon when in reality corporations are run by people, good and bad.
pessimizer 2y ago
> It's not like there's some "I used AI" loophole that exempts one from the law. There is, it's called a judge. When they explain to him that AIs are by definition neutral and objective and are let off. I'm sure the regulations will just serve to formalize this process, by Congressionally defining AIs that satisfy some checklist of lobbied for conditions as objective and neutral. After a few years, the collective liability from taking back this declaration will keep Congress from ever reverting it. They've been into defining things lately. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill just came too early.
tbrownaw 2y ago
I believe there's a few cases where you're allowed to talk about Fact A, and you're allowed to talk about Fact B, but you're not allowed to talk about both Fact A and Fact B at the same time. Mostly (entirely?) having to do with export restrictions around technologies that the government wants to keep away from other countries it doesn't like. I'd think that an AI system that answers questions combining both could get its makers in trouble in ways that a standard search engine finding separate results about each from separate queries probably wouldn't.

janice1999 2y ago

> but I shudder to think what form they would take The EU just passed the AI Act based on the inputs of experts and with widespread support from its Parliament and Council.

pelorat 2y ago
In about two years time, most AI providers will realize that the EU is not worth the effort and pack up and leave. The repercussions from the AI act has not begun yet.
- janice1999 2y ago
  Companies adapt to regulations and don't just walk away from 100s of millions of customers. Companies made a lot of noise about GDPR and yet it's now a non-issue.
  - waldohatesyou 2y ago
    I'm not sure about that, there haven't been too many large European tech companies growing up in the aftermath of GDPR. While it's probably a small factor, I do think this general climate of regulation hurts smaller companies more than is generally acknowledged.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    It is not a non-issue.. i promise you GDPR shifted and continues to shift massive amounts of tech capital from the EU. many major tech firms skip launching entire products in the EU nowadays due to gdpr and DMA
  - astrange 2y ago
    They're by far not done regulating. Upcoming ones like Cybersecurity Act will be pretty burdensome to deal with if they don't turn out right.
whimsicalism 2y ago
Frankly I don’t think the EU should be held up as an example of a well-informed regulatory apparatus.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> shudder to think what form they would take, given the typical government level of technological expertise and understanding Start with public disclosure. A repository where AI firms publicly file simple, standardised information—model architecture, training sources, intended user, responsible executives, et cetera—that can guide the public and policymakers in future rulemaking. More generally, this complaint about electeds’ domain expertise misunderstands how modern states work. Congress can’t build a plane. That doesn’t mean they can’t build the FAA.

tomrod 2y ago
That already is starting up, albeit slowly, for gov agencies as well as best practices.
ramblenode 2y ago
Congress can delegate decisions to expert bodies, and often does. But Congress is also quite comfortable simply legislating a solution, which may be ill-informed or with ulterior intent. Speaking of planes, Congress took a direct role in the design specifications of the F-35 to the detriment of that program. Notably, they required a common airframe that could support VTOL, despite objections from the Army, Navy, and Air Force (the USMC wanted it and lobbied for it). This greatly added to the complexity and cost of the program.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Congress is also quite comfortable simply legislating a solution So don’t do that. Nothing you said is a cogent argument against regulation. > Congress took a direct role in the design specifications of the F-35 to the detriment of that program. Notably, they required a common airframe that could support VTOL, despite objections from the Army, Navy, and Air Force Huh, didn’t know. Source? (Genuinely curious.)