5 ms·

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 t

by 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.

by andy99 2y ago

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.