7 ms·

When a "right to..." law is passed, there is usually an accompanying narrative that explains a past injustice that will be corrected. Matthew Shepard hate crim

When a "right to..." law is passed, there is usually an accompanying narrative that explains a past injustice that will be corrected. Matthew Shepard hate crime, Civil Rights Voting act, etc. The absence of such a story makes me think this law doesn't protect shit. What exactly did a Montanian get killed or arrested trying to do with a computer that is now protected? Can I use AI during a traffic stop or use AI to surveil and doxx governemnt employees? What exactly is the government giving up by granting me this right? Or is this just about supressing opposition to data centers?

culi 7mo ago
Yeah I think it's pretty obviously the AI industry trying to ban its own regulation > Nationally, the Right to Compute movement is gaining traction. Spearheaded by the grassroots group RightToCompute.ai, the campaign argues that computation — like speech and property — is a fundamental human right. “A computer is an extension of the human capacity to think,” the organization states.
- dismalaf 7mo ago
  Regulation is just regulatory capture by incumbents and also a national security risk.
  - hdgvhicv 7mo ago
    You argue that food safety tellregialtikns are just regularity capture?
    - jfengel 7mo ago
      Aggravatingly, some of it is. The organic food regulations are impossible for the small farmers who invented the idea. Only mega corps can do it, and their definition is not much better (if at all) than industrial farms. It's still way better than Upton Sinclair's time. But it would be nice if the FDA and USDA were run by people who eat rather than sell food.
    - dismalaf 7mo ago
      To start a restaurant where I live it's $50k in fees and mandatory paperwork before you can even get a construction permit. Alot of it is, yes. And none of it prevents bad food handling practices by minimum wage staff.
      - jmye 7mo ago
        > And none of it prevents bad food handling practices by minimum wage staff. Your argument is that all restaurants in your area handle food unsafely? Or that some do flagrantly and without penalty? Or that one has once and you got sick and so all the regulations are worthless as a result? Trying to understand what argument you think you’re making, here, and specifically how factually bereft and vacuous it actually is.
        dismalaf 7mo ago
        Maybe try reading or understanding. We're talking a stage where there is no lease and there are no employees. There's just an idea and an empty space. You need to pay various levels of governments, engineers and architects 10's of thousands just to make blueprints and have them stamped by 2 levels of governments before a construction permit is even given in the name of "food safety". Then you need to build the thing, pay more fees to get it actually certified. Then maybe you can think about hiring and training employees, a million or so dollars later. The equivalent is a tech startup needing to pay government and some regulatory organization $50k just to be allowed to buy a laptop to then maybe think about writing code in the future. Yes, paying government fees before there's a single employee doesn't magically imbue the employees (that don't exist yet) with the knowledge of safe food handling...
        jmye 7mo ago
        > We're talking a stage where there is no lease and there are no employees. There's just an idea and an empty space. Do you think cold storage requirements, sinks, and other functional items in the kitchen don't prevent poor food handling practices? > a million or so dollars later. Eye roll. > The equivalent is a tech startup needing to pay government and some regulatory organization $50k just to be allowed to buy a laptop to then maybe think about writing code in the future. Your shitty react SPA likely won't kill anyone because you didn't bother installing any sinks and didn't think your refrigerator needed to appropriately keep raw chicken at the right temperature. But if it could, maybe they should. Maybe there would be less Meta engineers and we'd all be better off. > Yes, paying government fees before there's a single employee doesn't magically imbue the employees (that don't exist yet) with the knowledge of safe food handling... And yet it provides them with the appropriate tools to keep that food safe after. > Maybe try reading or understanding. Ironic lead in, when you don't actually know what regulations you're even whining about or why they might exist.
  - lucianbr 7mo ago
    Looks like this one might be while in general the rule does not hold. Good regulations exist, and so do bad ones. Arguments without nuance often do more harm than good to your side.
  - tempodox 7mo ago
    Deregulation is just regulatory capture by industry and also a national security risk.
    - dismalaf 7mo ago
      This makes no sense. How do you figure?
- staplers 7mo ago
  computation — like speech and property — is a fundamental human right Computation however requires a vast supply chain where certain middlemen have a near monopoly on distribution of said "fundamental right". The incentives for lobbyists seems clear. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, but until profit is shared with taxpayers, this is a one-way transaction of taxpayers bankrolling AI companies.
  - terminalshort 7mo ago
    I find your claim that there is a monopoly on computing laughable. No other technology has improved in quality or dropped in price as much as computers over the last 40 years. If this what you get from a monopoly, then we need more monopolies.
    - wyldfire 7mo ago
      Modern semiconductor fabrication is a very narrow field. As far as monopolies go I don't think it's our biggest concern, like you say. If we want to continue to wage wars and seek conquest, it's not great to have it located in one/few countries. But instead if we want to work towards peace, we should continue breaking down barriers to trade (while maintaining protections for labor).
akersten 7mo ago
Eh, if states can pass restrictive laws on AI in absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event, I don't see any contradiction in doing the opposite.
- moate 7mo ago
  >>absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event. You don't think there's reasons pass laws banning AI...datacenters? Because what state is banning the concept of AI? They're banning/restricting the creation of a type of infrastructure within their borders because they feel that is detrimental to their citizens. Maybe it's NIMBY/Luditte BS to you, but people not wanting their resources to go help ensure some dork can have a chat-bot girlfriend seems normal to me.
  - akersten 7mo ago
    I didn't say any of that in my comment nor express an opinion about this whole thing writ large. I'm only pointing out that it's not weird for legislature to preempt a real world use case by way of pointing out similar laws.
    - moate 7mo ago
      I'm going to do this again: >>>>absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event. What did you mean? Why do you believe there has not been a motivating event to ban data centers when those bans have happened, which is literally what you said?
      - akersten 7mo ago
        In the context of the discussion a correspondingly negative event would have been along the lines of "we built a data center and then it exploded, we need to make sure that doesn't happen." Not "we're worried about the effects the data center might have," which is vis a vis to "we're worried about the effects banning ai might have." All I'm saying is neither of those last two are weird reasons to enact a law. GP was insisting that "rights" named laws always come after some negative event and it is weird that we have this "rights" named law without someone being deprived of their computation or whatever. I'm disagreeing with the premise that that's weird by pointing out laws preempt real world events all the time, in either direction (restrictive or permissive).
Eridrus 7mo ago
This is mostly signaling, but NY is currently considering a law to prevent AI systems from giving legal and medical advice: https://statescoop.com/new-york-bill-would-ban-chatbots-legal-medical-advice/ https://statescoop.com/new-york-bill-would-ban-chatbots-lega...
- arendtio 7mo ago
  I don't think that this is a good idea. For medical applications, I can understand that LLMs are not the best solution, since they are so bad with numbers/probabilities. But for legal advice, I think they should be pretty good. So the only reason I can think of to forbid such use cases is that people in those professions fear being replaced by machines.
  - genthree 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - hermannj314 7mo ago
    Preventable medical errors kill 250,000 American every year, I can imagine LLMs could be both good and bad for that number, but on net, it is hard to say without just guessing. But if you ban the application of LLMs to medical care, you close that door before even seeing the potential on the other side. I think that is absurd.
    - jlarocco 7mo ago
      I don't think that conclusion really follows because I don't think the ban works that way. There's a big difference between ChatGPT writing a prescription and a doctor double checking his diagnosis using some kind of Claude code for medicine. ChatGPT writing prescriptions and giving medical device directly to people should absolutely be prohibited for now, but the second approach should be encouraged.
    - jmye 7mo ago
      > it is hard to say without just guessing It really isn’t. How many surgeries do you think LLMs perform? How many of those medical errors would’ve been resolved by a chatbot? It’s easy to quote a big scary number and pretend like it has some vague relevance when you don’t actually understand the problem space.

culi 7mo ago

Yeah I think it's pretty obviously the AI industry trying to ban its own regulation > Nationally, the Right to Compute movement is gaining traction. Spearheaded by the grassroots group RightToCompute.ai, the campaign argues that computation — like speech and property — is a fundamental human right. “A computer is an extension of the human capacity to think,” the organization states.

dismalaf 7mo ago
Regulation is just regulatory capture by incumbents and also a national security risk.
- hdgvhicv 7mo ago
  You argue that food safety tellregialtikns are just regularity capture?
  - jfengel 7mo ago
    Aggravatingly, some of it is. The organic food regulations are impossible for the small farmers who invented the idea. Only mega corps can do it, and their definition is not much better (if at all) than industrial farms. It's still way better than Upton Sinclair's time. But it would be nice if the FDA and USDA were run by people who eat rather than sell food.
  - dismalaf 7mo ago
    To start a restaurant where I live it's $50k in fees and mandatory paperwork before you can even get a construction permit. Alot of it is, yes. And none of it prevents bad food handling practices by minimum wage staff.
    - jmye 7mo ago
      > And none of it prevents bad food handling practices by minimum wage staff. Your argument is that all restaurants in your area handle food unsafely? Or that some do flagrantly and without penalty? Or that one has once and you got sick and so all the regulations are worthless as a result? Trying to understand what argument you think you’re making, here, and specifically how factually bereft and vacuous it actually is.
      - dismalaf 7mo ago
        Maybe try reading or understanding. We're talking a stage where there is no lease and there are no employees. There's just an idea and an empty space. You need to pay various levels of governments, engineers and architects 10's of thousands just to make blueprints and have them stamped by 2 levels of governments before a construction permit is even given in the name of "food safety". Then you need to build the thing, pay more fees to get it actually certified. Then maybe you can think about hiring and training employees, a million or so dollars later. The equivalent is a tech startup needing to pay government and some regulatory organization $50k just to be allowed to buy a laptop to then maybe think about writing code in the future. Yes, paying government fees before there's a single employee doesn't magically imbue the employees (that don't exist yet) with the knowledge of safe food handling...
        jmye 7mo ago
        > We're talking a stage where there is no lease and there are no employees. There's just an idea and an empty space. Do you think cold storage requirements, sinks, and other functional items in the kitchen don't prevent poor food handling practices? > a million or so dollars later. Eye roll. > The equivalent is a tech startup needing to pay government and some regulatory organization $50k just to be allowed to buy a laptop to then maybe think about writing code in the future. Your shitty react SPA likely won't kill anyone because you didn't bother installing any sinks and didn't think your refrigerator needed to appropriately keep raw chicken at the right temperature. But if it could, maybe they should. Maybe there would be less Meta engineers and we'd all be better off. > Yes, paying government fees before there's a single employee doesn't magically imbue the employees (that don't exist yet) with the knowledge of safe food handling... And yet it provides them with the appropriate tools to keep that food safe after. > Maybe try reading or understanding. Ironic lead in, when you don't actually know what regulations you're even whining about or why they might exist.
- lucianbr 7mo ago
  Looks like this one might be while in general the rule does not hold. Good regulations exist, and so do bad ones. Arguments without nuance often do more harm than good to your side.
- tempodox 7mo ago
  Deregulation is just regulatory capture by industry and also a national security risk.
  - dismalaf 7mo ago
    This makes no sense. How do you figure?
staplers 7mo ago
computation — like speech and property — is a fundamental human right Computation however requires a vast supply chain where certain middlemen have a near monopoly on distribution of said "fundamental right". The incentives for lobbyists seems clear. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, but until profit is shared with taxpayers, this is a one-way transaction of taxpayers bankrolling AI companies.
- terminalshort 7mo ago
  I find your claim that there is a monopoly on computing laughable. No other technology has improved in quality or dropped in price as much as computers over the last 40 years. If this what you get from a monopoly, then we need more monopolies.
  - wyldfire 7mo ago
    Modern semiconductor fabrication is a very narrow field. As far as monopolies go I don't think it's our biggest concern, like you say. If we want to continue to wage wars and seek conquest, it's not great to have it located in one/few countries. But instead if we want to work towards peace, we should continue breaking down barriers to trade (while maintaining protections for labor).

akersten 7mo ago

Eh, if states can pass restrictive laws on AI in absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event, I don't see any contradiction in doing the opposite.

moate 7mo ago
>>absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event. You don't think there's reasons pass laws banning AI...datacenters? Because what state is banning the concept of AI? They're banning/restricting the creation of a type of infrastructure within their borders because they feel that is detrimental to their citizens. Maybe it's NIMBY/Luditte BS to you, but people not wanting their resources to go help ensure some dork can have a chat-bot girlfriend seems normal to me.
- akersten 7mo ago
  I didn't say any of that in my comment nor express an opinion about this whole thing writ large. I'm only pointing out that it's not weird for legislature to preempt a real world use case by way of pointing out similar laws.
  - moate 7mo ago
    I'm going to do this again: >>>>absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event. What did you mean? Why do you believe there has not been a motivating event to ban data centers when those bans have happened, which is literally what you said?
    - akersten 7mo ago
      In the context of the discussion a correspondingly negative event would have been along the lines of "we built a data center and then it exploded, we need to make sure that doesn't happen." Not "we're worried about the effects the data center might have," which is vis a vis to "we're worried about the effects banning ai might have." All I'm saying is neither of those last two are weird reasons to enact a law. GP was insisting that "rights" named laws always come after some negative event and it is weird that we have this "rights" named law without someone being deprived of their computation or whatever. I'm disagreeing with the premise that that's weird by pointing out laws preempt real world events all the time, in either direction (restrictive or permissive).

Eridrus 7mo ago

This is mostly signaling, but NY is currently considering a law to prevent AI systems from giving legal and medical advice: https://statescoop.com/new-york-bill-would-ban-chatbots-legal-medical-advice/ https://statescoop.com/new-york-bill-would-ban-chatbots-lega...

arendtio 7mo ago
I don't think that this is a good idea. For medical applications, I can understand that LLMs are not the best solution, since they are so bad with numbers/probabilities. But for legal advice, I think they should be pretty good. So the only reason I can think of to forbid such use cases is that people in those professions fear being replaced by machines.
- genthree 7mo ago
  [dead]
- hermannj314 7mo ago
  Preventable medical errors kill 250,000 American every year, I can imagine LLMs could be both good and bad for that number, but on net, it is hard to say without just guessing. But if you ban the application of LLMs to medical care, you close that door before even seeing the potential on the other side. I think that is absurd.
  - jlarocco 7mo ago
    I don't think that conclusion really follows because I don't think the ban works that way. There's a big difference between ChatGPT writing a prescription and a doctor double checking his diagnosis using some kind of Claude code for medicine. ChatGPT writing prescriptions and giving medical device directly to people should absolutely be prohibited for now, but the second approach should be encouraged.
  - jmye 7mo ago
    > it is hard to say without just guessing It really isn’t. How many surgeries do you think LLMs perform? How many of those medical errors would’ve been resolved by a chatbot? It’s easy to quote a big scary number and pretend like it has some vague relevance when you don’t actually understand the problem space.