3 ms·
https://archive.is/hnpmx https://archive.is/hnpmx all 3 can be true at same time: 1. sensationalizing rarely helps and can obscure and hurt 2. the AI capabil
by gz5 7d ago
https://archive.is/hnpmx https://archive.is/hnpmx
all 3 can be true at same time:
1. sensationalizing rarely helps and can obscure and hurt
2. the AI capabilities are underrated
3. attempted govt regulation is not the answer
the intent, or lack of intent, of the agent is mainly irrelevant if it is in the hands of a human with 'bad' intentions. what is more relevant are the capabilities of human + AI.
- f30e3dfed1c9 7d ago"attempted govt regulation is not the answer" Self-regulation? None at all?
- OutOfHere 7d agoThere already exist laws against hacking. Legal damages already can apply. Further laws aren't necessary and will only suppress open-weight AI firms, making the monopoly of large AI firms more entrenched. See the first comment (by Brett Matson) on the archive link of the WSJ article.
- iAMkenough 6d agoI think we need an AI sheriff that aggressively enforces the law. The current level of enforcement and the fine schedule is not enough of a deterrent to prevent these large corporations from breaking existing laws. Frequently make an example of them and you’ll be hailed a hero by the general populous.