4 ms·

Huge amount of skepticism on HN right now, but the models are increasingly capable, and there are real, significant risks. The approach proposed by Amodei look

by agd 13d ago

Huge amount of skepticism on HN right now, but the models are increasingly capable, and there are real, significant risks. The approach proposed by Amodei looks sensible - voluntary checks at frontier labs, and appropriate regulation to follow. Yes, the devil's in the details, but it feels like the right approach overall.

vrganj 13d ago
Turns out the EU was right all along with the AI act. They've been adopting a well-deserved "told you so" stance lately: > "In my view, the EU has already legislated for exactly this scenario: it is called the AI Act," said Michael McNamara, an Irish European Parliament lawmaker, who's the co-lead of the Parliament's group monitoring AI. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-response-ai-extinction-warnings/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-response-ai-extinction-wa...
- the_optimist 13d ago
  The EU is not leading anything. They may as well just commit to becoming a subsistence agricultural society with EPCOT heirlooms on display.
  - vrganj 13d ago
    If the rest of the world follows them on regulations they've thought through before anyone else, then I don't know what you would call that other than leading? Like, definitionally that's what leading is. It's interesting you're so derisive of actual, pragmatic leadership, of y'know deciding how we as a society will relate to new technologies - not just unthinkingly building gadgets.
    - nsdkdkdkfk 13d ago
      [dead]
laimewhisps 13d ago
The largest risk is that Anthropic and OpenAI have a monopoly on the SOTA. This is why you see these companies trying so hard to get regulatory capture. For the rest of us, we want access as equitable as possible.
jacobgold 13d ago
> The approach proposed by Amodei looks sensible... It's hard to imagine any government regulation that didn't look sensible on paper and at first. But we know that government regulation has an extremely mixed record, with lots of good and bad outcomes.
- kenferry 13d ago
  That's true enough, but I don't think the conclusion is "don't regulate". Try it, iterate, figure it out. It'll be painful but so be it.

by agd 13d ago

vrganj 13d ago

Turns out the EU was right all along with the AI act. They've been adopting a well-deserved "told you so" stance lately: > "In my view, the EU has already legislated for exactly this scenario: it is called the AI Act," said Michael McNamara, an Irish European Parliament lawmaker, who's the co-lead of the Parliament's group monitoring AI. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-response-ai-extinction-warnings/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-response-ai-extinction-wa...

the_optimist 13d ago
The EU is not leading anything. They may as well just commit to becoming a subsistence agricultural society with EPCOT heirlooms on display.
- vrganj 13d ago
  If the rest of the world follows them on regulations they've thought through before anyone else, then I don't know what you would call that other than leading? Like, definitionally that's what leading is. It's interesting you're so derisive of actual, pragmatic leadership, of y'know deciding how we as a society will relate to new technologies - not just unthinkingly building gadgets.
  - nsdkdkdkfk 13d ago
    [dead]

laimewhisps 13d ago

The largest risk is that Anthropic and OpenAI have a monopoly on the SOTA. This is why you see these companies trying so hard to get regulatory capture. For the rest of us, we want access as equitable as possible.

jacobgold 13d ago

> The approach proposed by Amodei looks sensible... It's hard to imagine any government regulation that didn't look sensible on paper and at first. But we know that government regulation has an extremely mixed record, with lots of good and bad outcomes.

kenferry 13d ago
That's true enough, but I don't think the conclusion is "don't regulate". Try it, iterate, figure it out. It'll be painful but so be it.