8 ms·
The whole point of regulating it is to shape what it will look like in a couple of years.
by remram 1y ago
The whole point of regulating it is to shape what it will look like in a couple of years.
- dmix 1y agoRegulators often barely grasp how current markets function and they are supposed to be futurists now too? Government regulatory interests almost always end up lining up with protecting entrenched interests, so it's essentially asking for a slow moving group of the same mega companies. Which is very much what Europes market looks like today. Stasis and shifting to a stagnating middle.
- krainboltgreene 1y agoSo the solution is to allow the actual entrenched interests to determine the future of things when they also barely grasp how the current markets function and are currently proclaiming to be futurists?
- betaby 1y agoWon't somebody please think of the children?
- johnisgood 1y agoYes, a common rhetoric, and terrorism and national security.
- buggyinout 1y agoThey’re demanding collective conversation. You don’t have to be involved if you prefer to be asocial except to post impotent rage online. Same way the pols aren’t futurists and perfect neither is anyone else. Everyone should sit at the table and discuss this like adults. You want to go live in the hills alone, go for it, Dick Proenneke. Society is people working collectively.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoThe best way for "entrenched interests" to stifle competition is to buy/encourage regulation that keeps everybody else out of their sandbox pre-emptively. For reference, see every highly-regulated industry everywhere. You think Sam Altman was in testifying to the US Congress begging for AI regulation because he's just a super nice guy?
- goatlover 1y agoRegulation exists because of monopolistic practices and abuses in the early 20th century.
- dmix 1y agoThat's a bit oversimplified. Humans have been creating authority systems trying to control others lives and business since formal societies have been a thing, likely even before agriculture. History is also full of examples of arbitrary and counter productive attempts at control, which is a product of basic human nature combined with power, and why we must always be skeptical.
- verisimi 1y agoAs a member of 'humanity', do you find yourself creating authority systems for AI though? No. If you are paying for lobbyists to write the legislation you want, as corporations do, you get the law you want - that excludes competition, funds your errors etc. The point is you are not dealing with 'humanity', you are dealing with those who represent authority for humanity - not the same thing at all. Connected politicians/CEOs etc are not actually representing 'humanity' - they merely say that they are doing so, while representing themselves.
- keysdev 1y agoThat can be, however regulation has just changed monopolistic practices to even more profitable oligarchaistic practices. Just look at Standard Oil.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
- RestlessMind 1y agoOpenAI was not an entrenched interest until 2023. Yahoo mattered until 2009. Nokia was the king of mobile phones until 2010. Technology changes very quickly and the future of things is hardly decided by entrenched interests.
- stuaxo 1y agoThe EU is founded on the idea of markets and regulation.
- miohtama 1y agoThe EU is founded on the idea of useless bureaucracy. It's not just IT. Ask any EU farmer.
- fxtentacle 1y agoContrary to the constant whining, most of them are actually quite wealthy. And thanks to strong right to repair laws, they can keep using John Deere equipment without paying extortionate licensing fees.
- mavhc 1y agoThey're wealthy because they were paid for not using their agricultural land, so they cropped down all the trees on parts of their land that they couldn't use, to classify it as agricultural, got paid, and as a side effect caused downstream flooding
- pyman 1y agoJust to stay on topic: outside the US there's a general rule of thumb: if Meta is against it, the EU is probably doing something right.
- rpdillon 1y agoWell, the topic is really whether or not the EU's regulations are effective at producing desired outcomes. The comment you're responding to is making a strong argument that it isn't. I tend to agree. There's a certain hubris to applying rules and regulations to a system that you fundamentally don't understand.
- 1y ago
- messe 1y ago> Which is very much what Europes market looks like today. Stasis and shifting to a stagnating middle. Preferable to a burgeoning oligarchy.
- adastra22 1y agoNo, that... that's exactly what we have today. An oligarchy persists through captured state regulation. A more free market would have a constantly changing top.
- messe 1y agoHistorically, freer markets have lead to monopolies. It's why we have antitrust regulations in the first place (now if only they were enforced...)
- adastra22 1y agoDepends on the time horizon you look at. A completely unregulated market usually ends up dominated by monopolists… who last a generation or two and then are usurped and become declining oligarchs. True all the way back to the Medici. In a rigidly regulated market with preemptive action by regulators (like EU, Japan) you end up with a persistent oligarchy that is never replaced. An aristocracy of sorts. The middle road is the best. Set up a fair playing field and rules of the game, but allow innovation to happen unhindered, until the dust has settled. There should be regulation, but the rules must be bought with blood. The risk of premature regulation is worse.
- messe 1y ago> There should be regulation, but the rules must be bought with blood. That's an awfully callous approach, and displays a disturbing lack of empathy toward other people.
- adastra22 1y agoCalculated, not callous. Quite the opposite: precaution kills people every day, just not as visibly. This is especially true in the area of medicine where innovation (new medicines) aren’t made available even when no other treatment is approved. People die every day by the hundreds of thousands of diseases that we could be innovating against.
- olalonde 1y agoYou're both right, and that's exactly how early regulation often ends up stifling innovation. Trying to shape a market too soon tends to lock in assumptions that later prove wrong.
- mycall 1y agoDepends what those assumptions are. If by protecting humans from AI gross negligence, then the assumptions are predetermined to be siding towards human normals (just one example). Lets hope logic and understanding of the long term situation proceeds the arguments in the rulesets.
- dmix 1y agoYou're just guessing as much as anyone. Almost every generation in history has had doomers predicting the fall of their corner of civilization from some new thing. From religion schisms, printing presses, radio, TV, advertisements, the internet, etc. You can look at some of the earliest writings by English priests in the 1500s predicting social decay and destruction of society which would sound exactly like social media posts in 2025 about AI. We should at a minimum under the problem space before restricting it, especially given the nature of policy being extremely slow to change (see: copyright).
- esperent 1y agoI'd urge you to read a book like Black Swan, or study up on statistics. Doomers have been wrong about completely different doom scenarios in the past (+), but it says nothing about to this new scenario. If you're doing statistics in your head about it, you're wrong. We can't use scenarios from the past to make predictions about completely novel scenarios like thinking computers. (+) although they were very close to being right about nuclear doom, and may well be right about climate change doom.
- rpdillon 1y agoI'd like for you to expand your point on understanding statistics better. I think I have a very good understanding of statistics, but I don't see how it relates to your point. Your point is fundamentally philosophical, which is you can't use the past to predict the future. But that's actually a fairly reductive point in this context. GP's point is that simply making an argument about why everything will fail is not sufficient to have it be true. So we need to see something significantly more compelling than a bunch of arguments about why it's going to be really bad to really believe it, since we always get arguments about why things are really, really bad.
- felipeerias 1y agoThe experience with other industries like cars (specially EV) shows that the ability of EU regulators to shape global and home markets is a lot more limited than they like to think.
- imachine1980_ 1y agoNot really china make big policy bet a decade early and win the battle the put the whole government to buy this new tech before everyone else, forcing buses to be electric if you want the federal level thumbs up, or the lottery system for example. So I disagree, probably Europe will be even more behind in ev if they doesn't push eu manufacturers to invest so heavily in the industry. You can se for example than for legacy manufacturers the only ones in the top ten are Europeans being 3 out of 10 companies, not Japanese or Korean for example, and in Europe Volkswagen already overtake Tesla in sales Q1 for example and Audi isn't that much away also.
- jabjq 1y agoWhat will happen, like every time a market is regulated in the EU, is that the market will move on without the EU.
- CamperBob2 1y agoIf the regulators were qualified to work in the industry, then guess what: they'd be working in the industry.
- TacticalCoder 1y ago[dead]
- energy123 1y agoThe point is to stop and deter market failure, not anticipate hypothetical market failure
- adastra22 1y agoThat has never worked.