10 ms·

My feeling is we need laws to stop it

by ajkjk 11mo ago

rubyfan 11mo ago
The industry agrees with you, hence the regulatory capture.
Yizahi 11mo ago
Too big to fail now
- DavidPiper 11mo ago
  If it only takes a few years for a private entity to become "too big to fail" and quasi-immune to government regulation, we have a real problem.
  - fyrn_ 11mo ago
    An yeah, and honestly we do seem to have a real problem. Here's hoping OpenAI doesn't get the bailout they seem to be angling for..
crazygringo 11mo ago
You don't like some features being added to products so you want laws against adding certain features? I might not like a certain feature, but I'd dislike the government preventing companies from adding features a whole lot more. The thought of that terrifies me. (To be clear, legitimate regulations around privacy, user data, anti-fraud, etc. are fine. But just because you find AI features to be something you don't... like? That's not a legitimate reason for government intervention.)
- MangoToupe 11mo ago
  What is so terrifying about exerting democratic control over software critical to exist in society?
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    > over software critical to exist in society? I don't know what that means grammatically. But you could ask, what is so terrifying about exerting democratic control over people's free speech, over the political opinions they're allowed to express? The answer is, because it infringes on freedom. As long as these AI features aren't harming anyone -- if your only complaint is you find their presence annoying, in a product you have a free choice in using or not using -- then there's no democratic justification for passing laws against them. Democratic rights take precedence.
    - esseph 11mo ago
      Newsflash If voters Democratically decide to do something, that's democracy at work.
      - crazygringo 11mo ago
        "Newsflash", the entire point of constitutions that enumerate rights is that fundamental rights and freedoms may not be abridged even by majority decision. If a Supreme Court strikes down a majority-passed law limiting free speech guaranteed by the Constitution, that's democracy at work.
        esseph 11mo ago
        If they can't be abridged, then why do we have amendments? And no, that would be the courts at work, which may or may not be beholden to the whims of other political figures.
        crazygringo 11mo ago
        It takes more than majority vote to add a new amendment. Go ahead and try, but I don't think you'll find that an amendment to restrict people's freedoms is going to be very popular. Because it will be seen as anti-democratic.
- dclowd9901 11mo ago
  I think it's more about enforcing having easy mechanisms to opt out, which seem to be absent with regards to AI integration. It's better to assume good faith when providing a counter argument.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    That doesn't change anything. If there aren't any harms except that certain people don't "like" a feature, it's not the government's role to force companies to allow users to opt out of features. If you don't like a feature, don't buy the product. The government should not be micromanaging product design.
    - materielle 11mo ago
      Why isn’t it the governments role? Because you think it’s not? What if I, and many other people, think that it is?
      - crazygringo 11mo ago
        Because it's ultimately a form of censorship. Governments shouldn't be in the business of shutting down speech some people don't like, and in the same way shouldn't be in the business of shutting down software features some people don't like. As long as nobody is being harmed, censorship is bad and anti-democratic. (And we make exceptions for cases of actual harm, like libelous or threatening speech, or a product that injures or defrauds its users.) Freedom is a fundamental aspect of democracy, which is why freedoms are written into constitutions so simple majority vote can't remove them.
        anonymouskimmer 11mo ago
        1) Integration or removal of features isn't speech. And has been subject to government compulsion for a long time (e.g. seat belts and catalytic converters in automobiles). 2) Business speech is limited in many, many ways. There is even compelled speech in business (e.g. black box warnings, mandatory sonograms prior to abortions).
- ajkjk 11mo ago
  Yes. I think laws should be used to shut down things that are universally disliked but for which there is no other mechanism for accountability. That seems like obviously the point of laws.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    Except these LLM features are not universally disliked. If they were, believe me, the companies would not be building them. Lots of people actually find them useful. And the features are being iterated on to improve them.
    - ajkjk 11mo ago
      not the LLM features. The undisable-able intrusions to advertise them, which rely on controlling platforms and so being able to use them to anticompetitively promote their own products.
      - crazygringo 11mo ago
        Yes, the LLM features. There's nothing anticompetitive in a popup or button for your own feature in your own product. People like me find many of them useful. Maybe you find that inconvenient for the narrative you're pushing, but it's true.
        ajkjk 11mo ago
        What do you mean narrative? The narrative is that I hate them. If almost everyone else also does, we should ban them. Simple as that. It is no different from passing legislation to ban spam or mandate that newsletters have one-click unsubscribe buttons. I hate living a world where corporations are unaccountably disrespectful to their users. Laws are how you hold them accountable. I don't care if the justification for the laws is competition or spam or what. It's simply the point of laws: to give society power over things that individuals can't easily have power over, so that they may improve their lives. To argue that we shouldn't improve our lives is absurd. The only justification for not doing it would be that it is immoral to do so, which it is not. Otherwise the only remaining question is whether we can rally the political will to do it. Not likely in the short term, but, the way things are going I expect it will happen eventually.
- venturecruelty 11mo ago
  >You don't like some features being added to products so you want laws against adding certain features? Correct, especially when the features break copyright law, use as much electricity as Belgium, and don't actually work at all. Just a simple button that says "Enabled", and it's off by default. Shouldn't be too hard, yeah? You can continue to use the slop machine, that's fine. Don't force the rest of us to get down in the trough with you.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    I have no problem with a company voluntarily choosing to make it a toggle. I have a big problem with a government forcing companies to enable toggles on features because users complain about the UX. If there are problems with copyright, that's an issue for the courts -- not a user toggle. If you have problems with the electricity, then that's an issue for electricity infrastructure regulations. If you think it doens't work, then don't use it. Passing a law forcing a company to turn off a legal feature by default is absurd. It's no different from asking a publisher to censor pages of a book that some people don't like, and make them available only by a second mail-order purchase to the publisher. That's censorship.
    - venturecruelty 11mo ago
      >I have a big problem with a government forcing companies to enable toggles on features because users complain about the UX. I have a big problem with companies forcing me to use garbage I don't want to use. >If there are problems with copyright, that's an issue for the courts -- not a user toggle. But in the meantime, companies can just get away with breaking the law. >If you have problems with the electricity, then that's an issue for electricity infrastructure regulations. But in the meantime, companies can drive up the cost of electricity with reckless abandon. >If you think it doens't work, then don't use it. I wish I lived in your world where I can opt out of all of this AI garbage. >Passing a law forcing a company to turn off a legal feature by default is absurd. "Legal" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. You know the court system is slow, and companies running roughshod over the law until the litigation works itself out "because they're all already doing it anyway" is par for the course. AirBnB should've been illegal, but by the time we went to litigate it, it was too big. Spotify sold pirated music until it was too big to litigate. How convenient that this keeps happening. To the casual observer, it would almost seem intentional, but no, it's probably just some crazy coincidence. >It's no different from asking a publisher to censor pages of a book that some people don't like, and make them available only by a second mail-order purchase to the publisher. That's censorship. Forcing companies to stop being deleterious to society is not censorship, and it isn't Handmaid's Tale to enforce a semblance of consumer rights.

My feeling is we need laws to stop it

by ajkjk 11mo ago

My feeling is we need laws to stop it

rubyfan 11mo ago

The industry agrees with you, hence the regulatory capture.

Yizahi 11mo ago

Too big to fail now

DavidPiper 11mo ago
If it only takes a few years for a private entity to become "too big to fail" and quasi-immune to government regulation, we have a real problem.
- fyrn_ 11mo ago
  An yeah, and honestly we do seem to have a real problem. Here's hoping OpenAI doesn't get the bailout they seem to be angling for..

crazygringo 11mo ago

You don't like some features being added to products so you want laws against adding certain features? I might not like a certain feature, but I'd dislike the government preventing companies from adding features a whole lot more. The thought of that terrifies me. (To be clear, legitimate regulations around privacy, user data, anti-fraud, etc. are fine. But just because you find AI features to be something you don't... like? That's not a legitimate reason for government intervention.)

MangoToupe 11mo ago
What is so terrifying about exerting democratic control over software critical to exist in society?
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  > over software critical to exist in society? I don't know what that means grammatically. But you could ask, what is so terrifying about exerting democratic control over people's free speech, over the political opinions they're allowed to express? The answer is, because it infringes on freedom. As long as these AI features aren't harming anyone -- if your only complaint is you find their presence annoying, in a product you have a free choice in using or not using -- then there's no democratic justification for passing laws against them. Democratic rights take precedence.
  - esseph 11mo ago
    Newsflash If voters Democratically decide to do something, that's democracy at work.
    - crazygringo 11mo ago
      "Newsflash", the entire point of constitutions that enumerate rights is that fundamental rights and freedoms may not be abridged even by majority decision. If a Supreme Court strikes down a majority-passed law limiting free speech guaranteed by the Constitution, that's democracy at work.
      - esseph 11mo ago
        If they can't be abridged, then why do we have amendments? And no, that would be the courts at work, which may or may not be beholden to the whims of other political figures.
        crazygringo 11mo ago
        It takes more than majority vote to add a new amendment. Go ahead and try, but I don't think you'll find that an amendment to restrict people's freedoms is going to be very popular. Because it will be seen as anti-democratic.
dclowd9901 11mo ago
I think it's more about enforcing having easy mechanisms to opt out, which seem to be absent with regards to AI integration. It's better to assume good faith when providing a counter argument.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  That doesn't change anything. If there aren't any harms except that certain people don't "like" a feature, it's not the government's role to force companies to allow users to opt out of features. If you don't like a feature, don't buy the product. The government should not be micromanaging product design.
  - materielle 11mo ago
    Why isn’t it the governments role? Because you think it’s not? What if I, and many other people, think that it is?
    - crazygringo 11mo ago
      Because it's ultimately a form of censorship. Governments shouldn't be in the business of shutting down speech some people don't like, and in the same way shouldn't be in the business of shutting down software features some people don't like. As long as nobody is being harmed, censorship is bad and anti-democratic. (And we make exceptions for cases of actual harm, like libelous or threatening speech, or a product that injures or defrauds its users.) Freedom is a fundamental aspect of democracy, which is why freedoms are written into constitutions so simple majority vote can't remove them.
      - anonymouskimmer 11mo ago
        1) Integration or removal of features isn't speech. And has been subject to government compulsion for a long time (e.g. seat belts and catalytic converters in automobiles). 2) Business speech is limited in many, many ways. There is even compelled speech in business (e.g. black box warnings, mandatory sonograms prior to abortions).
ajkjk 11mo ago
Yes. I think laws should be used to shut down things that are universally disliked but for which there is no other mechanism for accountability. That seems like obviously the point of laws.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  Except these LLM features are not universally disliked. If they were, believe me, the companies would not be building them. Lots of people actually find them useful. And the features are being iterated on to improve them.
  - ajkjk 11mo ago
    not the LLM features. The undisable-able intrusions to advertise them, which rely on controlling platforms and so being able to use them to anticompetitively promote their own products.
    - crazygringo 11mo ago
      Yes, the LLM features. There's nothing anticompetitive in a popup or button for your own feature in your own product. People like me find many of them useful. Maybe you find that inconvenient for the narrative you're pushing, but it's true.
      - ajkjk 11mo ago
        What do you mean narrative? The narrative is that I hate them. If almost everyone else also does, we should ban them. Simple as that. It is no different from passing legislation to ban spam or mandate that newsletters have one-click unsubscribe buttons. I hate living a world where corporations are unaccountably disrespectful to their users. Laws are how you hold them accountable. I don't care if the justification for the laws is competition or spam or what. It's simply the point of laws: to give society power over things that individuals can't easily have power over, so that they may improve their lives. To argue that we shouldn't improve our lives is absurd. The only justification for not doing it would be that it is immoral to do so, which it is not. Otherwise the only remaining question is whether we can rally the political will to do it. Not likely in the short term, but, the way things are going I expect it will happen eventually.
venturecruelty 11mo ago
>You don't like some features being added to products so you want laws against adding certain features? Correct, especially when the features break copyright law, use as much electricity as Belgium, and don't actually work at all. Just a simple button that says "Enabled", and it's off by default. Shouldn't be too hard, yeah? You can continue to use the slop machine, that's fine. Don't force the rest of us to get down in the trough with you.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  I have no problem with a company voluntarily choosing to make it a toggle. I have a big problem with a government forcing companies to enable toggles on features because users complain about the UX. If there are problems with copyright, that's an issue for the courts -- not a user toggle. If you have problems with the electricity, then that's an issue for electricity infrastructure regulations. If you think it doens't work, then don't use it. Passing a law forcing a company to turn off a legal feature by default is absurd. It's no different from asking a publisher to censor pages of a book that some people don't like, and make them available only by a second mail-order purchase to the publisher. That's censorship.
  - venturecruelty 11mo ago
    >I have a big problem with a government forcing companies to enable toggles on features because users complain about the UX. I have a big problem with companies forcing me to use garbage I don't want to use. >If there are problems with copyright, that's an issue for the courts -- not a user toggle. But in the meantime, companies can just get away with breaking the law. >If you have problems with the electricity, then that's an issue for electricity infrastructure regulations. But in the meantime, companies can drive up the cost of electricity with reckless abandon. >If you think it doens't work, then don't use it. I wish I lived in your world where I can opt out of all of this AI garbage. >Passing a law forcing a company to turn off a legal feature by default is absurd. "Legal" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. You know the court system is slow, and companies running roughshod over the law until the litigation works itself out "because they're all already doing it anyway" is par for the course. AirBnB should've been illegal, but by the time we went to litigate it, it was too big. Spotify sold pirated music until it was too big to litigate. How convenient that this keeps happening. To the casual observer, it would almost seem intentional, but no, it's probably just some crazy coincidence. >It's no different from asking a publisher to censor pages of a book that some people don't like, and make them available only by a second mail-order purchase to the publisher. That's censorship. Forcing companies to stop being deleterious to society is not censorship, and it isn't Handmaid's Tale to enforce a semblance of consumer rights.