4 ms·

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 w

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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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).
      - crazygringo 10mo ago
        I said, "As long as nobody is being harmed". Seatbelts and catalytic converters are about keeping people safe from harm. As are black box warnings and mandatory sonograms. And legally, code and software are considered a form of speech in many contexts. Do you really want the government to start telling you what software you can and cannot build? You think the government should be able to outlaw Python and require you to do your work in Java, and outlaw JSON and require your API's to return XML? Because that's the type of interference you're talking about here.
        anonymouskimmer 10mo ago
        Mandatory sonograms aren't about harm prevention. (Though yes, I would agree with you if you said the government should not be able to compel them.) In the US, commercial activities do not have constitutionally protected speech rights, with the sole exception of "the press". This is covered under the commerce clause and the first amendment, respectively. I assemble DNA, I am not a programmer. And yes, due to biosecurity concerns there are constraints. Again, this might be covered under your "does no harm" standard. Though my making smallpox, for example, would not be causing harm any more than someone building a nuclear weapon would cause harm. The harm would come from releasing it. But I think, given that AI has encouraged people to suicide, and would allow minors the ability to circumvent parental controls, as examples, that regulations pertaining to AI integration in software, including mandates that allow users to disable it (NOTE, THIS DOESN'T FORCE USERS TO DISABLE IT!!), would also fall under your harm standard. Outside of that, the leaking of personally identifiable information does cause material harm every day. So there needs to be proactive control available to the end user regarding what AI does on their computer, and how easy it is to accidentally enable information-gathering AI when that was not intended. I can come up with more examples of harm beyond mere annoyance. Hopefully these examples are enough.
        crazygringo 10mo ago
        Those examples of harm are not good ones. The topic of suicide and LLMs is a nuanced and complex one, but LLMs aren't suggesting it out of nowhere when summarizing your inbox or calendar. Those are conversations users actively start. As for leaking PII, that's definitely something for to be aware of, but it's not a major practical concern for any end users so far. We'll see if prompt injection turns into a significant real-world threat and what can be done to mitigate it. But people here aren't arguing against LLM features based on substantial harms. They're doing it because they don't like it in their UX. That's not a good enough reason for the government to get involved. (Also, regarding sonograms, I typed without thinking -- yes of course the ones that are medically unnecessary have no justification in law, which is precisely why US federal courts have struck them down in North Carolina, Indiana, and Kentucky. And even when they're medically necessary, that's a decision for doctors not lawmakers.)
- novemp 10mo ago
  In a democratic society, "government" is just a tool that the people use to exercize their will.
- timando 10mo ago
  What product should I buy if I need a smartphone to e.g. pay for parking but I don't want a smartphone that tracks me?
  - crazygringo 10mo ago
    Take it up with your city council, if they're the ones require a smartphone to pay for parking. But also, you're going to have to be more specific about what tracking you're worried about. Cell towers need to track you to give you service. But the parking app only gets the data you enable with permissions, and the data the city requires you to give the app (e.g. a payment method). So I'm not super clear what tracking you're concerned about? If you don't use your smartphone for anything but paying for parking, I genuinely don't know what tracking you're concerned about.
- bluefirebrand 10mo ago
  > If there aren't any harms except that certain people don't "like" a feature The reason I don't like these sorts of features is because I think they are harmful, personally

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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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).
    - crazygringo 10mo ago
      I said, "As long as nobody is being harmed". Seatbelts and catalytic converters are about keeping people safe from harm. As are black box warnings and mandatory sonograms. And legally, code and software are considered a form of speech in many contexts. Do you really want the government to start telling you what software you can and cannot build? You think the government should be able to outlaw Python and require you to do your work in Java, and outlaw JSON and require your API's to return XML? Because that's the type of interference you're talking about here.
      - anonymouskimmer 10mo ago
        Mandatory sonograms aren't about harm prevention. (Though yes, I would agree with you if you said the government should not be able to compel them.) In the US, commercial activities do not have constitutionally protected speech rights, with the sole exception of "the press". This is covered under the commerce clause and the first amendment, respectively. I assemble DNA, I am not a programmer. And yes, due to biosecurity concerns there are constraints. Again, this might be covered under your "does no harm" standard. Though my making smallpox, for example, would not be causing harm any more than someone building a nuclear weapon would cause harm. The harm would come from releasing it. But I think, given that AI has encouraged people to suicide, and would allow minors the ability to circumvent parental controls, as examples, that regulations pertaining to AI integration in software, including mandates that allow users to disable it (NOTE, THIS DOESN'T FORCE USERS TO DISABLE IT!!), would also fall under your harm standard. Outside of that, the leaking of personally identifiable information does cause material harm every day. So there needs to be proactive control available to the end user regarding what AI does on their computer, and how easy it is to accidentally enable information-gathering AI when that was not intended. I can come up with more examples of harm beyond mere annoyance. Hopefully these examples are enough.
        crazygringo 10mo ago
        Those examples of harm are not good ones. The topic of suicide and LLMs is a nuanced and complex one, but LLMs aren't suggesting it out of nowhere when summarizing your inbox or calendar. Those are conversations users actively start. As for leaking PII, that's definitely something for to be aware of, but it's not a major practical concern for any end users so far. We'll see if prompt injection turns into a significant real-world threat and what can be done to mitigate it. But people here aren't arguing against LLM features based on substantial harms. They're doing it because they don't like it in their UX. That's not a good enough reason for the government to get involved. (Also, regarding sonograms, I typed without thinking -- yes of course the ones that are medically unnecessary have no justification in law, which is precisely why US federal courts have struck them down in North Carolina, Indiana, and Kentucky. And even when they're medically necessary, that's a decision for doctors not lawmakers.)
novemp 10mo ago
In a democratic society, "government" is just a tool that the people use to exercize their will.
timando 10mo ago
What product should I buy if I need a smartphone to e.g. pay for parking but I don't want a smartphone that tracks me?
- crazygringo 10mo ago
  Take it up with your city council, if they're the ones require a smartphone to pay for parking. But also, you're going to have to be more specific about what tracking you're worried about. Cell towers need to track you to give you service. But the parking app only gets the data you enable with permissions, and the data the city requires you to give the app (e.g. a payment method). So I'm not super clear what tracking you're concerned about? If you don't use your smartphone for anything but paying for parking, I genuinely don't know what tracking you're concerned about.
bluefirebrand 10mo ago
> If there aren't any harms except that certain people don't "like" a feature The reason I don't like these sorts of features is because I think they are harmful, personally