5 ms·

Lots of people in academia and industry are calling for more oversight. It's the US government that's behind. Europe's AI Act bans applications with unacceptabl

by esafak 2y ago

Lots of people in academia and industry are calling for more oversight. It's the US government that's behind. Europe's AI Act bans applications with unacceptable risk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence_Act

azinman2 2y ago
Unless China handicaps the their progress as well (which they won’t, see made in China 2025), all you’re doing is handing the future to deepseek et al.
- nicce 2y ago
  This thought process it not different than it was with nuclear weapons. The primary difference is the observability - with satellites we had some confidence that other nations respected treaties, or that they had enough reaction time for mutual destruction, but with this AI development we lack all that.
  - lukas099 2y ago
    Yes, it was the same with nukes, each side had to build them because the other side was building them.
  - bpodgursky 2y ago
    Only countries with nuclear weapons had an actual seat at the table when the world banned new nuclear weapon programs.
    - nicce 2y ago
      That is why we see the current AI competition and some attempts from companies to regulate it so that "it is safe only in their hands". https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/ https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/
- esafak 2y ago
  What kind of a future is that? If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? We can selectively ban uses without banning the technology wholesale; e.g., nuclear power generation is permitted, while nuclear weapons are strictly controlled.
  - alasano 2y ago
    We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia. If it's winner takes all for the first company/nation to have AGI (presuming we can control it), then slowing down progress of any kind with regulation is a risk. I don't think there's a good enough analogy to be made, like your nuclear power/weapons example. The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude.
    - esafak 2y ago
      As with nuclear weapons, there is non-negligible probability of wiping out the human race. The companies developing AI have not solved the alignment problem, and OpenAI even dismantled what programs it had on it. They are not going to invest in it unless forced to. We should not be racing ahead because China is, but investing energy in alignment research and international agreements.
    - troupo 2y ago
      > We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia. We do know that. By literally looking at China. > The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude. AGI aligned with whom?
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    > If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? I think the more relevant question is: Do you want to live in a Chinese dystopia, or a European one?
    - esafak 2y ago
- saubeidl 2y ago
  [dead]
- immibis 2y ago
  Compare the other American "innovations" that Europe mostly rejects.
lenerdenator 2y ago
The US government probably doesn't think it's behind. Right now it's operated by a bunch of people who think that you can directly relate the amount of money a venture could make in the next 90 days to its net benefit for society. Government telling them how they can and cannot make that money, in their minds, is government telling them that they cannot bring maximum benefit to society. Now, is this mindset myopic to everything that most people have in their lived experience? Is it ethically bankrupt and held by people who'd sell their own mothers for a penny if they otherwise couldn't get that penny? Would those people be banished to a place beyond human contact for the rest of their existence by functioning organs of an even somewhat-sane society? I don't know. I'm just asking questions.
- aylmao 2y ago
  I'd go further and say the US government wants "an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" to be built in its territory, by people it has jurisdiction over. It might not be a direct US-govt project like the Manhattan Project was, but it doesn't have to. The government has the ties it needs with the heads of all these AI companies, and if it comes to it, the US-govt has the muscle and legal authority to reign control over it. A good deal for everyone involved really. These companies get to make bank and technology that furthers their market dominance, the US-govt gets potentially "Manhattan project"-level pivotal technology— it's elites helping elites.
jimbokun 2y ago
US government is behind because Biden admin were pushing strongly for controls and regulations and told Andersen and friends exactly that, who then went and did everything in their power to elect Trump, who then put those same tech bros in charge of making his AI policy.
philipwhiuk 2y ago
> Lots of people in academia and industry Mostly OpenAI and DeepMind and it stunk of 'pulling up the drawbridge behind them' and pivoting from actual harm to theoretical harm. For a crowd supposedly entrenched in startups, it's amazing everyone here is so slow to recognise it's all funding pitches and contract bidding.
0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
The EU can say all it wants about banning AI applications with unacceptable risk. But ASML is still selling machines to TSMC, which makes the chips which the AI companies are using. The EU is very much profiting off of the AI boom. ASML makes significantly more money than OpenAI, even.
- kgwgk 2y ago
  If we think of “making money” as having more revenue than expenses a lemonade stand makes significantly more money than OpenAI.

by esafak 2y ago

azinman2 2y ago

Unless China handicaps the their progress as well (which they won’t, see made in China 2025), all you’re doing is handing the future to deepseek et al.

nicce 2y ago
This thought process it not different than it was with nuclear weapons. The primary difference is the observability - with satellites we had some confidence that other nations respected treaties, or that they had enough reaction time for mutual destruction, but with this AI development we lack all that.
- lukas099 2y ago
  Yes, it was the same with nukes, each side had to build them because the other side was building them.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  Only countries with nuclear weapons had an actual seat at the table when the world banned new nuclear weapon programs.
  - nicce 2y ago
    That is why we see the current AI competition and some attempts from companies to regulate it so that "it is safe only in their hands". https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/ https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/
esafak 2y ago
What kind of a future is that? If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? We can selectively ban uses without banning the technology wholesale; e.g., nuclear power generation is permitted, while nuclear weapons are strictly controlled.
- alasano 2y ago
  We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia. If it's winner takes all for the first company/nation to have AGI (presuming we can control it), then slowing down progress of any kind with regulation is a risk. I don't think there's a good enough analogy to be made, like your nuclear power/weapons example. The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude.
  - esafak 2y ago
    As with nuclear weapons, there is non-negligible probability of wiping out the human race. The companies developing AI have not solved the alignment problem, and OpenAI even dismantled what programs it had on it. They are not going to invest in it unless forced to. We should not be racing ahead because China is, but investing energy in alignment research and international agreements.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia. We do know that. By literally looking at China. > The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude. AGI aligned with whom?
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? I think the more relevant question is: Do you want to live in a Chinese dystopia, or a European one?
  - esafak 2y ago
saubeidl 2y ago
[dead]
immibis 2y ago
Compare the other American "innovations" that Europe mostly rejects.

lenerdenator 2y ago

The US government probably doesn't think it's behind. Right now it's operated by a bunch of people who think that you can directly relate the amount of money a venture could make in the next 90 days to its net benefit for society. Government telling them how they can and cannot make that money, in their minds, is government telling them that they cannot bring maximum benefit to society. Now, is this mindset myopic to everything that most people have in their lived experience? Is it ethically bankrupt and held by people who'd sell their own mothers for a penny if they otherwise couldn't get that penny? Would those people be banished to a place beyond human contact for the rest of their existence by functioning organs of an even somewhat-sane society? I don't know. I'm just asking questions.

aylmao 2y ago
I'd go further and say the US government wants "an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" to be built in its territory, by people it has jurisdiction over. It might not be a direct US-govt project like the Manhattan Project was, but it doesn't have to. The government has the ties it needs with the heads of all these AI companies, and if it comes to it, the US-govt has the muscle and legal authority to reign control over it. A good deal for everyone involved really. These companies get to make bank and technology that furthers their market dominance, the US-govt gets potentially "Manhattan project"-level pivotal technology— it's elites helping elites.

jimbokun 2y ago

US government is behind because Biden admin were pushing strongly for controls and regulations and told Andersen and friends exactly that, who then went and did everything in their power to elect Trump, who then put those same tech bros in charge of making his AI policy.

philipwhiuk 2y ago

> Lots of people in academia and industry Mostly OpenAI and DeepMind and it stunk of 'pulling up the drawbridge behind them' and pivoting from actual harm to theoretical harm. For a crowd supposedly entrenched in startups, it's amazing everyone here is so slow to recognise it's all funding pitches and contract bidding.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago

The EU can say all it wants about banning AI applications with unacceptable risk. But ASML is still selling machines to TSMC, which makes the chips which the AI companies are using. The EU is very much profiting off of the AI boom. ASML makes significantly more money than OpenAI, even.

kgwgk 2y ago
If we think of “making money” as having more revenue than expenses a lemonade stand makes significantly more money than OpenAI.