3 ms·

If you mean to say we should seek to set the same bar on AI that generates CSAM, then that seems to me a very fine place to start - grandfather clause and all.

jchw 2y ago
I think the main issue with regulating computer programs and the Internet the way we regulate physical objects is that replication on the internet is roughly free. I think if we really wanted regulation like this to be meaningful, it would have to involve regulating the sale of compute power, something I personally really hope doesn't happen. That said, we're probably about to see a very similar issue crop up in the real world with 3D printed firearms, and I'm personally not looking forward to the consequences of it pretty much regardless of what the outcome is. Interesting times.
- throwanem 2y ago
  I might have been more clear that my analogy was specific to the theory of the crime, and not intended to speak to methods of abating it. You are of course correct that these would need to differ. I don't like the idea of such regulation being made in ignorance, either. Engineers should have a seat at that table, which requires first that we have earned it. I don't see where we have begun to do that, and I did my first paid work in this profession twenty-nine years ago. If that failure on the part of our profession proves to have consequences for us or for society, then I don't think any one of us is free to consider the blame for those entirely undeserved. Again, I don't require to have convinced you.
  - jchw 2y ago
    Since I started working we went from unwavering optimism about the power of software and the Internet to free and enrich us, as a nearly purely positive force. Obviously it was not true, and we've woken up with quite a hangover. At least that's how I feel. > Engineers should have a seat at that table, which requires first that we have earned it. I don't love this mentality. Leaving aside the issue of trying to quantify whether a seat at the table is earned or not, software developers are not a monoculture, even this thread shows that there is actually quite a lot of disagreement. Not having software developers at the table will probably just ensure the regulation is unnecessarily stupid and pointless, a lot like what seems to happen for firearms regulation. That said, I'm not even really concerned so much about whether engineers are allowed at the table. Instead I suspect the regulation will be skewed by interests with a lot of money, e.g. OpenAI wanting to pull up the ladder behind them. > Again, I don't require to have convinced you. Sorry if my previous comment came off as condescending. Anyway, I'm only commenting here because it is an interesting discussion topic to me, not trying to force a consensus.
    - throwanem 2y ago
      Oh, no worries at all. I only wanted to disclaim any force with which I'd seemed to make my argument. Please excuse me if I seem a little hard to pin down today. I spoke earlier of what was done to me before. Of those responsible, I learned yesterday by far the worst has ceased forever to trouble this earth: the police officer on whom he fired first has brought home to him all his sins. The corpse of him now enriches the soil of a potter's field - more worth by far than he ever had in his life, which he did not so lead as to earn even the most vacuous performance of mourning. I have for decades expected such news to change me when it came. I did not at all expect this wealth of peace and joy. I may not yet have begun to encompass it. These are thoughtful points you've made. I may find a more substantive response to offer here, but possibly not before the reply window closes.

jchw 2y ago

I think the main issue with regulating computer programs and the Internet the way we regulate physical objects is that replication on the internet is roughly free. I think if we really wanted regulation like this to be meaningful, it would have to involve regulating the sale of compute power, something I personally really hope doesn't happen. That said, we're probably about to see a very similar issue crop up in the real world with 3D printed firearms, and I'm personally not looking forward to the consequences of it pretty much regardless of what the outcome is. Interesting times.

throwanem 2y ago
I might have been more clear that my analogy was specific to the theory of the crime, and not intended to speak to methods of abating it. You are of course correct that these would need to differ. I don't like the idea of such regulation being made in ignorance, either. Engineers should have a seat at that table, which requires first that we have earned it. I don't see where we have begun to do that, and I did my first paid work in this profession twenty-nine years ago. If that failure on the part of our profession proves to have consequences for us or for society, then I don't think any one of us is free to consider the blame for those entirely undeserved. Again, I don't require to have convinced you.
- jchw 2y ago
  Since I started working we went from unwavering optimism about the power of software and the Internet to free and enrich us, as a nearly purely positive force. Obviously it was not true, and we've woken up with quite a hangover. At least that's how I feel. > Engineers should have a seat at that table, which requires first that we have earned it. I don't love this mentality. Leaving aside the issue of trying to quantify whether a seat at the table is earned or not, software developers are not a monoculture, even this thread shows that there is actually quite a lot of disagreement. Not having software developers at the table will probably just ensure the regulation is unnecessarily stupid and pointless, a lot like what seems to happen for firearms regulation. That said, I'm not even really concerned so much about whether engineers are allowed at the table. Instead I suspect the regulation will be skewed by interests with a lot of money, e.g. OpenAI wanting to pull up the ladder behind them. > Again, I don't require to have convinced you. Sorry if my previous comment came off as condescending. Anyway, I'm only commenting here because it is an interesting discussion topic to me, not trying to force a consensus.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    Oh, no worries at all. I only wanted to disclaim any force with which I'd seemed to make my argument. Please excuse me if I seem a little hard to pin down today. I spoke earlier of what was done to me before. Of those responsible, I learned yesterday by far the worst has ceased forever to trouble this earth: the police officer on whom he fired first has brought home to him all his sins. The corpse of him now enriches the soil of a potter's field - more worth by far than he ever had in his life, which he did not so lead as to earn even the most vacuous performance of mourning. I have for decades expected such news to change me when it came. I did not at all expect this wealth of peace and joy. I may not yet have begun to encompass it. These are thoughtful points you've made. I may find a more substantive response to offer here, but possibly not before the reply window closes.