3 ms·
I thought the piece was strongest when it leaned on quotes of Lessig and others, but its final word sounded weak to me: > [...] he told the Senate something el
by neilv 1y ago
I thought the piece was strongest when it leaned on quotes of Lessig and others, but its final word sounded weak to me:
> [...] he told the Senate something else: Too much regulation would be “disastrous” for America’s AI industry. Perhaps—but it might also be in the best interests of humanity.
Is anyone whose decision on this matters motivated by "the best interests of humanity"?
For that matter, the public being represented by decision-makers also has more pressing concerns -- like economic insecurity, a sense of declining national prestige, and (depending on ideology) fear of the general direction that the government is headed. Risks of AI that the piece mentions -- like innovation requiring water and maybe fossil fuels, or allusions to sci-fi AI superintelligence threat -- aren't high priorities. But the US profiting from AI sounds pretty good.
- layer8 1y ago> Is anyone whose decision on this matters motivated by "the best interests of humanity"? The article doesn't claim that they are — but maybe that they should be. And it doesn't look to me like AI will solve economic insecurity, declining national prestige, or governmental ideology. > But the US profiting from AI sounds pretty good. It's an open question who exactly in the US will profit.
- neilv 1y agoAgreed on all points. I'd like to see an article that links the OpenAI questions to actual priorities right now -- for the remaining government functions with integrity (e.g., should OpenAI be allowed to flaunt letter and sprit), for business decision-makers (e.g., fair competition), and for citizens.