4 ms·

> How does one counteract that self-serving incentive? Doesn't seem like we've found a good way considering we seem to be spearheading straight into techno-feud

> How does one counteract that self-serving incentive? Doesn't seem like we've found a good way considering we seem to be spearheading straight into techno-feudalism. The EU is trying right now. Discussed right now over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42916849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42916849 See: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/chapter/1/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/chapter/1/ and https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_1683 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_... AI systems are defined[0] in the Act in such a way as to capture the kind of "hands-off" decision-making systems where everyone involved could plead ignorance and put the blame on the system working in mysterious ways; it then proceeds to straight up ban a whole class of such systems, and classifies some of the rest as "high risk", to be subject to extra limitations and oversight. This is nowhere near 100% a solution, but at least in the limited areas, it sets the right tone: it's unacceptable to have automated systems observing and passing judgement on people, based on mysterious criteria that "emerged" in training. Whatever automation is permitted in these context, is basically forced to be straightforward enough that you could trace back from the system's recommendation to specific rules that were executed and to people that put them in. -- [0] - https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/3/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/3/

alephnerd 2y ago
The EU AI Regulations has some very broad carve outs added for Law Enforcement, such as real-time facial recognition. And individual EU states still have the authority to carve out exceptions as they wish. Like every other form of tech regulation done by the EU, it's all bark but no bite because politicians of individual countries have more power than MEPs. What's to stop Fidesz, PiS (if they return to power), etc from carving out broad exceptions for their own Interior Ministries? They've already done this with spyware like Pegasus. Instead of techno-feudalism, it's basically techno-paternalism which is essentially the same thing. In both cases, individual agency is being limited by someone else.
- dasil003 2y ago
  At least someone is trying. I don't see anyone doing better anywhere else in the world.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    A half assed effort is worse than no effort, because a half assed attempt can easily be weaponized The issue is a lot of EU legislation becomes powerless, as it's up to individual nations to implement rulings or define exceptions. And in plenty of cases, these exceptions tend to be broad and equally rife to lobbying like those you'd see in the US. And there is A LOT of lobbying happening at the nation state level (the level that actually matters) to carve out exceptions. I already pointed this out with spyware, and there's no reason to presume the exact same thing won't happen with weaponizing AI/ML tooling.
    - dasil003 2y ago
      In many ways I share your pessimism, but let me challenge you: > A half assed effort is worse than no effort, because a half assed attempt can easily be weaponized This part I'm not following. I don't see the EU effort as half-assed so much as just lacking teeth due to realpolitik. That's unfortunate but still a step in the right direction. What would you propose as an alternative? If you're just saying "we're fucked" that's a point of view, but it doesn't explain how the current attempts will be weaponized. All else being equal, I'd argue that having these issues in the global discussion is better than not. If they're not then how do they get addressed?
dimal 2y ago
Somehow, I think that using a bureaucracy to fix this bureaucratic tendency won’t solve it. Not that it’s not well-intentioned, but at some point we need to expect that individual humans to behave ethically, or else we’re doomed. Over and over, we try to fix society by adding more and more bureaucracy and the situation only gets worse.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  We keep adding layers of bureaucracy precisely because we can't expect individual humans to behave ethically at scale. Personal ethics aren't fully personal in nature - they're just as much a function of social environment as of one's "heart of hearts". Ethical behavior being expected and respected makes it easier for any individual to stick to their principles in the face of conflicting factors, like desires or basic self-preservation instinct. Individual ethics in social context is a powerful organizer, and can keep small groups of people (30-50) stable and working together for a common goal. Humans evolved to cooperate together at that size - such groups can self-govern and self-police just by everyone's sense of right and wrong. But it quickly breaks down past that size. Letting some individuals assume leadership role and direct others only stabilizes the group up to ~150 people (Dunbar number); past that, the group loses cohesion and ends up splitting up. Long story short: larger groups have survival advantage both against environment and over smaller groups. Because of it, we've eventually learned how to scale human societies to arbitrary sizes. The trick to do it is hierarchical governance to overcome Dunbar limit, and explicit rules to substitute for intimate relationships. By stacking layer upon layer, we grew from tribes of 150 governed by the spoken words of their chiefs, through kings managing networks of nobles via mutual obligation, to modern nation states that encompass millions of citizens in a hierarchy that's 4+ level deep (central government -> provinces -> regions -> towns), slowly building up more levels as nation states group into blocs. With each layer we added, complexity of explicit governance grew, giving rise to what we now call bureaucracy. The modern bureaucracy isn't some malignant growth or unfortunate side effect - it's the very glue that allows human societies to scale up to millions of people and more. It's the network of veins and nerves of a modern society - it's what allows me, one tiny cell, to benefit from the contribution of other cells and contribute on my own, and it's what keeps all the cells working as a whole. This means that, yes, as the society grows and faces new challenges, the solution usually really is more bureaucracy.

alephnerd 2y ago

The EU AI Regulations has some very broad carve outs added for Law Enforcement, such as real-time facial recognition. And individual EU states still have the authority to carve out exceptions as they wish. Like every other form of tech regulation done by the EU, it's all bark but no bite because politicians of individual countries have more power than MEPs. What's to stop Fidesz, PiS (if they return to power), etc from carving out broad exceptions for their own Interior Ministries? They've already done this with spyware like Pegasus. Instead of techno-feudalism, it's basically techno-paternalism which is essentially the same thing. In both cases, individual agency is being limited by someone else.

dasil003 2y ago
At least someone is trying. I don't see anyone doing better anywhere else in the world.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  A half assed effort is worse than no effort, because a half assed attempt can easily be weaponized The issue is a lot of EU legislation becomes powerless, as it's up to individual nations to implement rulings or define exceptions. And in plenty of cases, these exceptions tend to be broad and equally rife to lobbying like those you'd see in the US. And there is A LOT of lobbying happening at the nation state level (the level that actually matters) to carve out exceptions. I already pointed this out with spyware, and there's no reason to presume the exact same thing won't happen with weaponizing AI/ML tooling.
  - dasil003 2y ago
    In many ways I share your pessimism, but let me challenge you: > A half assed effort is worse than no effort, because a half assed attempt can easily be weaponized This part I'm not following. I don't see the EU effort as half-assed so much as just lacking teeth due to realpolitik. That's unfortunate but still a step in the right direction. What would you propose as an alternative? If you're just saying "we're fucked" that's a point of view, but it doesn't explain how the current attempts will be weaponized. All else being equal, I'd argue that having these issues in the global discussion is better than not. If they're not then how do they get addressed?

dimal 2y ago

Somehow, I think that using a bureaucracy to fix this bureaucratic tendency won’t solve it. Not that it’s not well-intentioned, but at some point we need to expect that individual humans to behave ethically, or else we’re doomed. Over and over, we try to fix society by adding more and more bureaucracy and the situation only gets worse.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
We keep adding layers of bureaucracy precisely because we can't expect individual humans to behave ethically at scale. Personal ethics aren't fully personal in nature - they're just as much a function of social environment as of one's "heart of hearts". Ethical behavior being expected and respected makes it easier for any individual to stick to their principles in the face of conflicting factors, like desires or basic self-preservation instinct. Individual ethics in social context is a powerful organizer, and can keep small groups of people (30-50) stable and working together for a common goal. Humans evolved to cooperate together at that size - such groups can self-govern and self-police just by everyone's sense of right and wrong. But it quickly breaks down past that size. Letting some individuals assume leadership role and direct others only stabilizes the group up to ~150 people (Dunbar number); past that, the group loses cohesion and ends up splitting up. Long story short: larger groups have survival advantage both against environment and over smaller groups. Because of it, we've eventually learned how to scale human societies to arbitrary sizes. The trick to do it is hierarchical governance to overcome Dunbar limit, and explicit rules to substitute for intimate relationships. By stacking layer upon layer, we grew from tribes of 150 governed by the spoken words of their chiefs, through kings managing networks of nobles via mutual obligation, to modern nation states that encompass millions of citizens in a hierarchy that's 4+ level deep (central government -> provinces -> regions -> towns), slowly building up more levels as nation states group into blocs. With each layer we added, complexity of explicit governance grew, giving rise to what we now call bureaucracy. The modern bureaucracy isn't some malignant growth or unfortunate side effect - it's the very glue that allows human societies to scale up to millions of people and more. It's the network of veins and nerves of a modern society - it's what allows me, one tiny cell, to benefit from the contribution of other cells and contribute on my own, and it's what keeps all the cells working as a whole. This means that, yes, as the society grows and faces new challenges, the solution usually really is more bureaucracy.