3 ms·

Reading the text it feels like a giveaway to an "AI safety" industry who will be paid well to certify compliance.

by srj 1y ago

xpe 1y ago
The commenter’s profile indicates they work for a major AI development companies — where being against AI regulation aligns nicely with one’s paycheck. See also the the scare quotes around AI safety. We all have heard the dogma: regulation kills innovation. As if unbridled innovation is all that people and society care about. I wonder if the commenter above has ever worked in an industry where a safety culture matters. Once you have, you see the world a little bit differently. Large chunks of Silicon Valley have little idea about safety: not in automotive, not in medicine, not for people, and certainly not for longer-term risks. So forgive us for not trusting AI labs to have good incentives. When regulation isn’t as efficient as we’d like, that is a problem. But you have to factor what happens if we don’t have any regulation. Also, don’t forget to call out every instance of insider corruption, kickback deals, any industry collusion.
- xpe 1y ago
  I welcome any substantive commentary and disagreement, as always. I’m happy to stray outside the herd. HN needs more clearly articulated disagreement regarding AI regulation. I made my comment in response to what seemed like a simplistic, ideology-driven claim. Few wise hackers would make an analogous claim about a system they actually worked on. Thinking carefully about tech but phoning it in for other topics is a double standard. Bare downvotes don't indicate (much less explain) one's rationale. I can’t tell if I (1) struck a nerve (an emotional response); (2) conjured a contentious philosophy (i.e. we have a difference in values or preferences or priorities), (3) made a logical error, (4) broke some norm or expectation, or (5) something else. Such a conflation of downvotes pushes me away from HN for meaningful discussion. I’ve lived/worked on both coasts, Austin, and more, and worked at many places (startups, academic projects, research labs, gov't, not-for-profits, big tech) and I don’t consider myself defined by any one place or culture. But for the context of AI regulation, I have more fundamental priorities than anything close to "technical innovation at all costs". P.S. (1) If a downvote here is merely an expression of “I’m a techno-libertarian” or "how dare you read someone's HN profile page and state the obvious?" or any such shallow disagreement, then IMO that’s counterproductive. If you want to express your viewpoint, make it persuasive rather than vaguely dismissive with an anonymous, unexplained downvote. (2) Some people do the thing where they guess at why someone else downvoted. That’s often speculation.
  - srj 1y ago
    FWIW I didn't downvote you. I don't work on AI personally, and while I have no way of proving it to you I certainly am not trying to shill for my employer. My skepticism of AI safety is just because of skepticism of AI generally. These are amazing things, but I don't believe the technology is even a road to AGI. There's a reason it can give a chess move when prompted and explain all the rules and notation, but can't actually play chess: it's not in the training data. I simply think the hype and anxiety is unnecessary, is my issue. Now this is most definitely just my opinion and has nothing to do with that company I work for who I'd bet would disagree with me on all of this anyway. If I did believe this was a road to AGI I actually would be in favor of AI safety regulation.
    - xpe 1y ago
      > There's a reason it can give a chess move when prompted and explain all the rules and notation, but can't actually play chess: it's not in the training data. I don't understand how you can claim an LLM can't play chess. Just as one example, see: https://dynomight.net/chess/ https://dynomight.net/chess/
    - xpe 1y ago
      > My skepticism of AI safety is just because of skepticism of AI generally. These are amazing things, but I don't believe the technology is even a road to AGI. Thanks for your response. I'm curious how to state your claim in a way that you would feel is accurate. Would you say "LLMs are not a road to AGI"? I put ~zero weight on what an arbitrary person believes until they clarify their ideas, show me their model, and give me a prediction. So: - Clarify: What exactly do you mean by "a road to"? Does this mean you are saying any future technology that uses LLMs (for training? for inference? something else) won't assist the development of AGI? - Model: On what model(s) of how the world works do you make your claims? - Prediction: If you are right, when will we know and what will be observe?
      - srj 1y ago
        Yes I'm talking about LLMs in particular. I'm in the stochastic parrot camp. Though I could be convinced humans are no more than stochastic parrots, in which case it does have a path for development of AGI. If I'm right the breakthroughs will plateau even while applications of the technology continue to advance for the next several years.
landl0rd 1y ago
Big4 audit all have a leech class of boomer audit partners who won't let the advisory arm separate and want money. This is a great new income stream. Figure deloitte in particular will make out like bandits on this.
KurSix 1y ago
There's definitely a cottage industry forming around "AI safety compliance"

Reading the text it feels like a giveaway to an "AI safety" industry who will be paid well to certify compliance.

by srj 1y ago

Reading the text it feels like a giveaway to an "AI safety" industry who will be paid well to certify compliance.

xpe 1y ago

The commenter’s profile indicates they work for a major AI development companies — where being against AI regulation aligns nicely with one’s paycheck. See also the the scare quotes around AI safety. We all have heard the dogma: regulation kills innovation. As if unbridled innovation is all that people and society care about. I wonder if the commenter above has ever worked in an industry where a safety culture matters. Once you have, you see the world a little bit differently. Large chunks of Silicon Valley have little idea about safety: not in automotive, not in medicine, not for people, and certainly not for longer-term risks. So forgive us for not trusting AI labs to have good incentives. When regulation isn’t as efficient as we’d like, that is a problem. But you have to factor what happens if we don’t have any regulation. Also, don’t forget to call out every instance of insider corruption, kickback deals, any industry collusion.

xpe 1y ago
I welcome any substantive commentary and disagreement, as always. I’m happy to stray outside the herd. HN needs more clearly articulated disagreement regarding AI regulation. I made my comment in response to what seemed like a simplistic, ideology-driven claim. Few wise hackers would make an analogous claim about a system they actually worked on. Thinking carefully about tech but phoning it in for other topics is a double standard. Bare downvotes don't indicate (much less explain) one's rationale. I can’t tell if I (1) struck a nerve (an emotional response); (2) conjured a contentious philosophy (i.e. we have a difference in values or preferences or priorities), (3) made a logical error, (4) broke some norm or expectation, or (5) something else. Such a conflation of downvotes pushes me away from HN for meaningful discussion. I’ve lived/worked on both coasts, Austin, and more, and worked at many places (startups, academic projects, research labs, gov't, not-for-profits, big tech) and I don’t consider myself defined by any one place or culture. But for the context of AI regulation, I have more fundamental priorities than anything close to "technical innovation at all costs". P.S. (1) If a downvote here is merely an expression of “I’m a techno-libertarian” or "how dare you read someone's HN profile page and state the obvious?" or any such shallow disagreement, then IMO that’s counterproductive. If you want to express your viewpoint, make it persuasive rather than vaguely dismissive with an anonymous, unexplained downvote. (2) Some people do the thing where they guess at why someone else downvoted. That’s often speculation.
- srj 1y ago
  FWIW I didn't downvote you. I don't work on AI personally, and while I have no way of proving it to you I certainly am not trying to shill for my employer. My skepticism of AI safety is just because of skepticism of AI generally. These are amazing things, but I don't believe the technology is even a road to AGI. There's a reason it can give a chess move when prompted and explain all the rules and notation, but can't actually play chess: it's not in the training data. I simply think the hype and anxiety is unnecessary, is my issue. Now this is most definitely just my opinion and has nothing to do with that company I work for who I'd bet would disagree with me on all of this anyway. If I did believe this was a road to AGI I actually would be in favor of AI safety regulation.
  - xpe 1y ago
    > There's a reason it can give a chess move when prompted and explain all the rules and notation, but can't actually play chess: it's not in the training data. I don't understand how you can claim an LLM can't play chess. Just as one example, see: https://dynomight.net/chess/ https://dynomight.net/chess/
  - xpe 1y ago
    > My skepticism of AI safety is just because of skepticism of AI generally. These are amazing things, but I don't believe the technology is even a road to AGI. Thanks for your response. I'm curious how to state your claim in a way that you would feel is accurate. Would you say "LLMs are not a road to AGI"? I put ~zero weight on what an arbitrary person believes until they clarify their ideas, show me their model, and give me a prediction. So: - Clarify: What exactly do you mean by "a road to"? Does this mean you are saying any future technology that uses LLMs (for training? for inference? something else) won't assist the development of AGI? - Model: On what model(s) of how the world works do you make your claims? - Prediction: If you are right, when will we know and what will be observe?
    - srj 1y ago
      Yes I'm talking about LLMs in particular. I'm in the stochastic parrot camp. Though I could be convinced humans are no more than stochastic parrots, in which case it does have a path for development of AGI. If I'm right the breakthroughs will plateau even while applications of the technology continue to advance for the next several years.

landl0rd 1y ago

Big4 audit all have a leech class of boomer audit partners who won't let the advisory arm separate and want money. This is a great new income stream. Figure deloitte in particular will make out like bandits on this.

KurSix 1y ago

There's definitely a cottage industry forming around "AI safety compliance"