6 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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 agoI'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 agoIn 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).
- hparadiz 7mo agoI'm already running an LLM locally. This is just me renting space in a data center. Since when did we restrict people's ability to do things? For the record my local models run off the solar bolted to my roof. Even including the data center I'm using 1/10th of the energy we were using on tube monitors back in the 90s. This is exhausting. My GPU would be demonstrably using more power by playing a videogame right now than when I run a local LLM.
- jrmg 7mo agoSince when did we restrict people's ability to do things? This question is not the obvious winner you think it is. To me, and I am sure many, it sort of undermines your argument. Even in the most ‘free' cultures, society has _always_ restricted people’s individual ability to do things that it collectively deems harmful to the whole society.
- hparadiz 7mo agoThis is literally why America was founded. Too many people stifle innovation. Move to Europe if you want to be stuck in the 20th century frankly. That doesn't mean we can't take care of folks. But the ludites need to get the fuck out of the way. You're all exhausting.
- cheeeeeeeese 7mo ago[dead]
- pocksuppet 7mo agoAmerica was founded because rich people didn't want to pay taxes.
- hparadiz 7mo ago[flagged]
- 7mo ago
- baggy_trough 7mo ago> 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. Why would it be your business, or anyone else's, to stop someone from doing this?
- Arainach 7mo agoBecause these data centers are at best overstressing utility grids and elevating prices for everyone and at worse running dirty generators and poisoning entire communities, for a start.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- 15155 7mo agoOh no, we couldn't possibly generate more power! Impossible! We're at our limit! China has 100 reactors under construction - meanwhile in the West, folks like you exist.
- Arainach 7mo agoIf the businesses that want data centers want to pay the full construction costs for the new power plants, great. Otherwise consumers are paying for them in the rates they pay to energy companies. It should not be considered shocking or controversial that people already hit hard by corporate greed and other effects of late-stage capitalism don't want to pay higher utility rates to subsidize the data centers being built by megacorporations who want to take away even more of their jobs.
- int_19h 7mo agoIn the West the new datacenters popping up are mostly powered by gas.
- jmye 7mo ago> Why would it be your business, or anyone else's, to stop someone from doing this? Because, in this country, we have “local government” wherein a bunch of people who live near each other have frequently banded together to make laws about the places they live. Surely this isn’t shocking news to you? Surely you’ve encountered this phenomenon before? Why do you think you have a right to do anything you want, anywhere you want, no matter what?
- cortesoft 7mo agoWhy should we stop there? Let’s ban people flying on vacations, because why should our resources go towards some dork laying out in the sun? Air travel is horribly wasteful. Let’s ban people racing cars, that is also wasteful. We shouldn’t be using our resources to drive in circles. How do we pick which activities are worth using resources? Which ones are too ‘dorky’ to allow? Look, I am all for pricing the externalities into resource consumption. Tax carbon production, to make sure energy consumption is sustainable, but don’t dictate which uses of energy are acceptable or ‘worth it’, because I don’t want only mainstream things to be allowed.
- gosub100 7mo agoso the jobs have to be lost _first_ , then we can ban it?
- sroussey 7mo agoJust like when musicians were on strike and the radio people decided to play a recording over the air (gasp! a record!) rather than live performances. A nice ban on playing recorded music would have saved those jobs.
- gosub100 7mo agoBad example. You are agreeing that copyright is owned by the people whose work an AI agent is trained on. Sure, come take a class of jobs, and then pay them in perpetuity to license the exposition of their work. For 75 years after the authors death, just like current copyright.
- Ukv 7mo agoIf the idea was that laws must be motivated by a negative occurrence rather than preemptive, then that'd follow yeah (if counting job loss as a reason to ban something, which I think is questionable). But note akersten is saying that it's normal for laws to be preemptive in both cases.
- cortesoft 7mo agoJob loss is a horrible reason to ban something. Think about our history if we always did that. We would all be stuck working on farms today, because we didn’t want to allow tractors or other machinery because it would take away farming jobs. Instead of banning tech to save jobs, pass laws that make sure tech prices in externalities (tax carbon emissions), and find other ways to assist people who lose jobs (UBI, good social safety nets, etc). Don’t stifle progress just because it makes us have to work less.
- ukuina 7mo agoCar dealerships would like a word.
- autoexec 7mo ago> if states can pass restrictive laws on AI in absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event... If you mean besides the extensive harm to air quality, the large land fingerprint of data centers, the massive strain on water resources and treatment facilities, the insane electricity demands resulting in skyrocketing prices pushed onto everyone else, the deafening noise pollution, and what they've done to the price of RAM, then sure. And that's just the data centers! The usage of AI itself has resulted in all kinds of harm and even actual deaths. AI has wrongfully denied people healthcare coverage they were entitled to preventing or delaying needed surgeries and treatments. There's a growing list of LLM related suicides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots). The use of AI in parole systems has kept people locked behind bars when they shouldn't have been due to biases in the bots making decisions. AI used for self-driving driving cars have killed pedestrians and other drivers. There are thousands of AI generated harms tracked here: https://airisk.mit.edu/ai-incident-tracker https://airisk.mit.edu/ai-incident-tracker
- tt24 7mo ago[flagged]
- cowboylowrez 7mo agoI knew this would happen, safety is now considered "woke" haha
- tt24 7mo agoNot sure what you mean by “woke” but prioritizing safety at the expense of everything else is poisonous
- FatherOfCurses 7mo agoSo is prioritizing corporate profiteering.