4 ms·

That’s a terrible way to create AI regulations If they actually cared about this issue we’d have predictable laws and regulatory bodies that let companies actu

That’s a terrible way to create AI regulations If they actually cared about this issue we’d have predictable laws and regulatory bodies that let companies actually plan There’s a reason royal fiat doesn’t lead to healthy economies. It’s just confusing and chaotic. It’s not clear why anyone would invest in a new model now. Then the next administration comes in and instantly, by fiat, they decide to lift the ban. The market just gets jerked around with no ability to plan long term investments.

tapoxi 4mo ago
> That’s a terrible way to create AI regulations This administration doesn't do regulations, its extortion. Same as the tariffs. Just grease someone's palm and then the vague restriction is lifted.
- K0balt 4mo ago
  I still can get de minimus from China no problem, as long as it’s Ali express. I wonder why? When anthropic answers that question, we will have access to fable again.
- mlrtime 4mo ago
  And that is the same as previous administrations, now you just see it openly.
aqme28 4mo ago
It’s a great way to regulate if you’re corrupt. When the rules are opaque and arbitrary, there’s a lot more room for corruption.
- _heimdall 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Kina 4mo ago
    Whether or not you agree with how US laws are drafted, this administration has no logical foundation for anything it does which is a massively different and worse problem by orders of magnitude. This administration runs on whims. This is horrifying and there is real harm in this we have yet to see the full repercussions of.
    - AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
      The lack of a logical foundation isn't the novelty. The whole system has run on whims and backfilled reasoning for a long time. That's the problem. If it had always been the rule of law until now then we would have an apparatus set up to impose checks and balances and accountability on government officials, but because those things have so atrophied from continuous contempt and neglect, no one knows how to demonstrate that what Trump is doing is wrong without also conceding that half of what the government has been doing for decades is wrong. But they also don't want to stop doing those things and therefore have rather a dilemma. Of course, that's assuming you actually demand logical consistency. If you don't care about that you can do whatever you want -- which is kind of the trouble.
      - _heimdall 4mo ago
        While I agree as implemented today our system of checks and balances is faltering, those systems do exist. Separation of powers and our three branch system was designed precisely to try and force checks on power. It may be failing, but the problem isn't that those systems weren't put in place.
        AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
        In significant part it's because those checks were removed. Laws are supposed to come from Congress, but by volume most rules the public is subject to now come from unelected administrative agencies in the executive branch. That's a clear violation of the separation of powers. Members of the US Senate, which laws are supposed to have to pass through, which confirm federal judges, and which do the impeachment trials, were originally appointed by the state legislatures, i.e. represented the states, until they were changed to be directly elected. The public's direct representatives were intended to be the House -- and House districts were intended to be small, until the number of seats was capped. So now the states have no representation in the federal government, and neither House districts nor state-wide Senate seats have small enough constituencies for individuals to be meaningfully heard by their representatives. Juries have the right to do jury nullification and it's one of the most powerful tools against bad laws. If you're on a jury and you think that it's the law which is wrong rather than the defendant's actions, you are not required to convict them. But defendants are essentially prohibited from telling juries that, so it almost never happens. Likewise, the list of procedural safeguards that were meant to protect people against abusive government prosecutions have been eroded to such an extent in the name of expedient mass incarceration that the freedom of any given person is down to the inclination of the government to charge them with something. Which in turn allows the government to govern through threats and demand things they have no right to demand, since they now have the ability to charge anyone with something else if they don't do whatever the government wants, regardless of whether the law requires them to do what they're being pressured to do, or even whether it's constitutionally permissible to make someone do that. This is all very bad but it's also not new. And it's what enables a tyrant when one comes, which is why it has needed to be fixed for some time now. But the best time to bolster checks and balances is before you remove them and the second best time is very soon.
andsoitis 4mo ago
In a parallel universe where we have Biden (or Democratic Party) administration, how different do you think the regulations / approach would be for this fast moving and unpredictable technology?
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  They at least wouldn't depend on how extensively you publicly glaze the President.
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
  They probably would have been in line with Executive Order 14110, the Biden administration's detailed description of a principled approach to regulation of the AI industry. It would have been aligned with the Trump administration's stated goals as well, but a coalition of rich VCs successfully bribed him to rescind it as one of his first acts in office, because the primary principle of Trumpist government is that people who pay Donald Trump a lot of money get what they want.
- digitaltrees 4mo ago
  It’s hard not to see this ban as being motivated by retribution for refusing to use the models for spying and autonomous warfare.
- hilariously 4mo ago
  Probably using the rule of law in some way? Talking about it in public? Legislating? You know... government type stuff?
  - mlrtime 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - vineyardmike 4mo ago
      Refusing to enact new laws around a thing most people don’t like, don’t want, and don’t care about (oh and is used for scams often) is quite different than a secret back door war.
VectorLock 4mo ago
Not that I'm ever one to support anything this regime does but I'm kind of okay with them pumping the brakes on this until we really get a handle on what the The USG has limited capabilities on technologies from GPS chips to thermal imaging with "national security" implications for a while and now they're doing it but it seems people don't like how ill defined "Mythos-class" means. Would it be better if it was some %X on some benchmark that the frontier model peddlers could just limbo under to make it "acceptable" for release? Do we just accept that jailbreaking will never be prevented? The part of all this I do have a problem with is the national state cybersecurity cat-and-mouse this kicks off. Will the US tech landscape have enough time to safely get a "Mythos-class" model to harden itself before China releases or leverages a "Mythos-class" cyber munition?
- thfuran 4mo ago
  > The USG has limited capabilities on technologies from GPS chips Are you referring to Selective Availability? That ended decades ago.
  - rcruzeiro 4mo ago
    Selective Availability accuracy restrictions ended decades ago, but GPS technology is still subject to various military and export-control restrictions.
  - VectorLock 4mo ago
    Not selective availability. COCOM Limits that prevent a GPS chip from operating above a certain speed and altitude.
    - withinboredom 4mo ago
      It’s funny because it’s just (relativistic) math. It would cost a couple hundred bucks to roll your own with no restrictions.
- handoflixue 4mo ago
  "pumping the brakes" would be fine. This is slamming to a full stop on a crowded freeway and causing a three car pile-up. Warning and advanced notice are the difference between regulation and tyranny, and in this case we're just getting tyranny
viapivov 4mo ago
Easy. You just have to have a good relationship with POTUS administration to have your investment secure.

tapoxi 4mo ago

> That’s a terrible way to create AI regulations This administration doesn't do regulations, its extortion. Same as the tariffs. Just grease someone's palm and then the vague restriction is lifted.

K0balt 4mo ago
I still can get de minimus from China no problem, as long as it’s Ali express. I wonder why? When anthropic answers that question, we will have access to fable again.
mlrtime 4mo ago
And that is the same as previous administrations, now you just see it openly.

aqme28 4mo ago

It’s a great way to regulate if you’re corrupt. When the rules are opaque and arbitrary, there’s a lot more room for corruption.

_heimdall 4mo ago
[flagged]
- Kina 4mo ago
  Whether or not you agree with how US laws are drafted, this administration has no logical foundation for anything it does which is a massively different and worse problem by orders of magnitude. This administration runs on whims. This is horrifying and there is real harm in this we have yet to see the full repercussions of.
  - AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
    The lack of a logical foundation isn't the novelty. The whole system has run on whims and backfilled reasoning for a long time. That's the problem. If it had always been the rule of law until now then we would have an apparatus set up to impose checks and balances and accountability on government officials, but because those things have so atrophied from continuous contempt and neglect, no one knows how to demonstrate that what Trump is doing is wrong without also conceding that half of what the government has been doing for decades is wrong. But they also don't want to stop doing those things and therefore have rather a dilemma. Of course, that's assuming you actually demand logical consistency. If you don't care about that you can do whatever you want -- which is kind of the trouble.
    - _heimdall 4mo ago
      While I agree as implemented today our system of checks and balances is faltering, those systems do exist. Separation of powers and our three branch system was designed precisely to try and force checks on power. It may be failing, but the problem isn't that those systems weren't put in place.
      - AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
        In significant part it's because those checks were removed. Laws are supposed to come from Congress, but by volume most rules the public is subject to now come from unelected administrative agencies in the executive branch. That's a clear violation of the separation of powers. Members of the US Senate, which laws are supposed to have to pass through, which confirm federal judges, and which do the impeachment trials, were originally appointed by the state legislatures, i.e. represented the states, until they were changed to be directly elected. The public's direct representatives were intended to be the House -- and House districts were intended to be small, until the number of seats was capped. So now the states have no representation in the federal government, and neither House districts nor state-wide Senate seats have small enough constituencies for individuals to be meaningfully heard by their representatives. Juries have the right to do jury nullification and it's one of the most powerful tools against bad laws. If you're on a jury and you think that it's the law which is wrong rather than the defendant's actions, you are not required to convict them. But defendants are essentially prohibited from telling juries that, so it almost never happens. Likewise, the list of procedural safeguards that were meant to protect people against abusive government prosecutions have been eroded to such an extent in the name of expedient mass incarceration that the freedom of any given person is down to the inclination of the government to charge them with something. Which in turn allows the government to govern through threats and demand things they have no right to demand, since they now have the ability to charge anyone with something else if they don't do whatever the government wants, regardless of whether the law requires them to do what they're being pressured to do, or even whether it's constitutionally permissible to make someone do that. This is all very bad but it's also not new. And it's what enables a tyrant when one comes, which is why it has needed to be fixed for some time now. But the best time to bolster checks and balances is before you remove them and the second best time is very soon.

andsoitis 4mo ago

In a parallel universe where we have Biden (or Democratic Party) administration, how different do you think the regulations / approach would be for this fast moving and unpredictable technology?

ceejayoz 4mo ago
They at least wouldn't depend on how extensively you publicly glaze the President.
SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
They probably would have been in line with Executive Order 14110, the Biden administration's detailed description of a principled approach to regulation of the AI industry. It would have been aligned with the Trump administration's stated goals as well, but a coalition of rich VCs successfully bribed him to rescind it as one of his first acts in office, because the primary principle of Trumpist government is that people who pay Donald Trump a lot of money get what they want.
digitaltrees 4mo ago
It’s hard not to see this ban as being motivated by retribution for refusing to use the models for spying and autonomous warfare.
hilariously 4mo ago
Probably using the rule of law in some way? Talking about it in public? Legislating? You know... government type stuff?
- mlrtime 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - vineyardmike 4mo ago
    Refusing to enact new laws around a thing most people don’t like, don’t want, and don’t care about (oh and is used for scams often) is quite different than a secret back door war.

VectorLock 4mo ago

Not that I'm ever one to support anything this regime does but I'm kind of okay with them pumping the brakes on this until we really get a handle on what the The USG has limited capabilities on technologies from GPS chips to thermal imaging with "national security" implications for a while and now they're doing it but it seems people don't like how ill defined "Mythos-class" means. Would it be better if it was some %X on some benchmark that the frontier model peddlers could just limbo under to make it "acceptable" for release? Do we just accept that jailbreaking will never be prevented? The part of all this I do have a problem with is the national state cybersecurity cat-and-mouse this kicks off. Will the US tech landscape have enough time to safely get a "Mythos-class" model to harden itself before China releases or leverages a "Mythos-class" cyber munition?

thfuran 4mo ago
> The USG has limited capabilities on technologies from GPS chips Are you referring to Selective Availability? That ended decades ago.
- rcruzeiro 4mo ago
  Selective Availability accuracy restrictions ended decades ago, but GPS technology is still subject to various military and export-control restrictions.
- VectorLock 4mo ago
  Not selective availability. COCOM Limits that prevent a GPS chip from operating above a certain speed and altitude.
  - withinboredom 4mo ago
    It’s funny because it’s just (relativistic) math. It would cost a couple hundred bucks to roll your own with no restrictions.
handoflixue 4mo ago
"pumping the brakes" would be fine. This is slamming to a full stop on a crowded freeway and causing a three car pile-up. Warning and advanced notice are the difference between regulation and tyranny, and in this case we're just getting tyranny

viapivov 4mo ago

Easy. You just have to have a good relationship with POTUS administration to have your investment secure.