5 ms·

"The US government, and all other governments, should regulate the development of SMI" This has basically the highest insanity * prominence of speaker product

"The US government, and all other governments, should regulate the development of SMI" This has basically the highest insanity * prominence of speaker product I've ever seen. The same geniuses who want to ban encryption and can't manage to get a CRUD website up and running without a 8-figure budget will regulate the existence of algorithms (i.e., math) routinely generated by groups of <4 or so researchers. Of course, people will be glad to "demonstrate their capabilities" to the group that's responsible for shutting them down if they're "too capable". "it’s important to write the regulations in such a way that they provide protection while producing minimal drag on innovation (though there will be some unavoidable cost)." Has this man ever seen a government regulatory framework operate? "To state the obvious, one of the biggest challenges is that the US has broken all trust with the tech community over the past couple of years. We’d need a new agency to do this." Don't worry guys! This is a new agency! "Regulation would have an effect on SMI development via financing—most venture firms and large technology companies don’t want to break major laws. Most venture-backed startups and large companies would presumably comply with the regulations." Here's the nugget. The only way this article makes any sense at all is as a completely disingenuous argument devoted to making it impossible to invest in technology companies, period (please tell me what "technology company" does not have at least some algorithmic or optimization component), without having a large compliance department and having greased the right palms. I don't particularly think he's that Machiavellian, but it seems like that or the alternative...

jrometty 12y ago
What I took from that line is that we need a regulatory power and that our current best option is the US government. SMI without regulation is impermissible. I don't like opening the regulation from within the U.S. Government, but I dislike other options more.
AceJohnny2 12y ago
We could call it the Turing Police... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer
fixxer 12y ago
I'd rather fight the SMI robot terminators that exist Altman's vision of the future than deal with the level of oppressive government regulation required to control such innovation. Asinine.
frabcus 12y ago
The US Government regulates all sorts of things that keep you safe - from pollution of your water supply through to seatbelts. It's not perfect, and it often fails at regulation. But your post doesn't give any help to understanding when it succeeds and when it fails.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- baddox 12y ago
  The trouble with evaluating regulations is that if you attribute positive effects directly to government regulations (e.g. "regulation X saved Y lives by keeping dangerous drug Z off the market"), it's only fair to also attribute negative effects directly to government regulations (e.g. "regulation X killed Y people by delaying the introduction of miracle drug Z to the market"). And even beyond that, you also need to analyze the costs of the regulatory system itself if you want to make conclusions about the net effects of the regulatory system as a whole.
- pgodzin 12y ago
  But those are regulating current products or services. This is calling for regulation now of RESEARCH in a specific field.
chroem- 12y ago
Would banning the creation of conscious AI really be all that different from the current moratorium on human cloning? We already have the technology to make human clones, but we choose not to because of the ethical implications.
- dputtick 12y ago
  It seems that the difference lies in the possible upside. Human clones currently don't seem likely to have much to offer. Conscious AI would have the potential to aid in the solution of a multitude of problems.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    Cloning has a huge amount to offer. First things that come to mind are cloning highly intelligent or successful people, or growing brain dead clones for medical experimentation and organ transplants. We've managed to succesfully halt progress on these technologies and even make them unthinkable, just by having a cultural bias against them. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for AI.
    - dputtick 12y ago
      You're definitely right on the second point...especially with a few more decades of advances in transplant technology. Seems like there is a innate human revulsion towards clones that has aided/led to the formation of this cultural bias. Unsure how easy it would be to replicate those feelings towards AI. Perhaps widespread acknowledgement of the potential dangers would be the first step. Anecdotally, people seem to have trouble grasping the dangers involved. They think of the iPhone in their pocket and can't possibly see the risk. Obviously it's near impossible to put yourself in the shoes of an entity that could be orders of magnitude more intelligent than the most intelligent human.
sama 12y ago
>This has basically the highest insanity * prominence of speaker product I've ever seen. Is that two compliments in one? :) I am debating releasing a sort of part 3, which actually could be called "insanity", but you should save the criticism for that one.
- fiatmoney 12y ago
  Maybe in that one you could explain what about your experience with machine learning algorithms and pharma style highly regulated industries leads you to believe that turning machine learning algorithm development (not even "deployment", mind you, since in the FOOM scenario developing a self improving capability is tantamount to deploying it) into a highly regulated industry wouldn't be an unmitigated disaster.
  - jal278 12y ago
    And maybe you could describe why regulating AI research must be an unmitigated disaster? If over time it proves that certain areas of research provide a clear existential threat to our species, why is it irrational to then attempt to slow down certain fields of research relative to others?
robotkilla 12y ago
120 days ago I argued here that we would most likely put regulations in place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8546701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8546701 I still think that is true, and it will most likely come from the UN. If it ends up becoming a legitimate threat we will regulate it the same way we regulate nukes - or at least we'll try to (and most likely fail miserably).
api 12y ago
"This has basically the highest insanity * prominence of speaker product I've ever seen." (I edited this post to remove my shock-induced LULZ and other flapdoodle and concentrate on the important stuff.) The more I re-read this and reflect on it, the more shocked I am. The first post in this serious was a bit of an eyebrow-raiser for me, but it still remained on the sane side of the fence. Yes, dangerous AI is worth thinking about. Lots of things are. Alien invasions aren't completely implausible either, and the Fermi Paradox is definitely worth thinking about. But this has jumped from thinking about the Fermi Paradox to arguing that we halt all radio emissions and space exploration now or the aliens will come for us. This is not a rational leap. As I said elsewhere in this thread: could this be some kind of ploy to make basic CS research illegal for anyone but deep-pocketed VC-linked concerns (and governments)? Probably not, but that could very well be the result. The sorts of regulations discussed here would make independent CS research illegal. Please tell me this "conspiracy theory" is insane. I really want to believe it is. Someone please tell me I'm crazy. Please? Anyone?
- sanxiyn 12y ago
  I actually think radio silence is a very rational thing to do, and Stephen Hawking agrees with me. Do not describe that issue as cut-and-dry. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/stephen-hawking-issues-warning-on-aliens http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/stephen...
  - api 12y ago
    This is the problem with smart people. Here we have absolutely tangible existential threats like fossil fuel depletion and die off, and here we are fretting about aliens and AI-- two things not even proven to exist.
    - sanxiyn 12y ago
      If humanity only worried about tangible threats, it would be worse off.
iampliny 12y ago
Guess I'll start working on the algorithms to capture that regulatory system. Who wants to be co-founder?
- fezz 12y ago
  I'm in.

jrometty 12y ago

What I took from that line is that we need a regulatory power and that our current best option is the US government. SMI without regulation is impermissible. I don't like opening the regulation from within the U.S. Government, but I dislike other options more.

AceJohnny2 12y ago

We could call it the Turing Police... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer

fixxer 12y ago

I'd rather fight the SMI robot terminators that exist Altman's vision of the future than deal with the level of oppressive government regulation required to control such innovation. Asinine.

frabcus 12y ago

The US Government regulates all sorts of things that keep you safe - from pollution of your water supply through to seatbelts. It's not perfect, and it often fails at regulation. But your post doesn't give any help to understanding when it succeeds and when it fails.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
baddox 12y ago
The trouble with evaluating regulations is that if you attribute positive effects directly to government regulations (e.g. "regulation X saved Y lives by keeping dangerous drug Z off the market"), it's only fair to also attribute negative effects directly to government regulations (e.g. "regulation X killed Y people by delaying the introduction of miracle drug Z to the market"). And even beyond that, you also need to analyze the costs of the regulatory system itself if you want to make conclusions about the net effects of the regulatory system as a whole.
pgodzin 12y ago
But those are regulating current products or services. This is calling for regulation now of RESEARCH in a specific field.

chroem- 12y ago

Would banning the creation of conscious AI really be all that different from the current moratorium on human cloning? We already have the technology to make human clones, but we choose not to because of the ethical implications.

dputtick 12y ago
It seems that the difference lies in the possible upside. Human clones currently don't seem likely to have much to offer. Conscious AI would have the potential to aid in the solution of a multitude of problems.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Cloning has a huge amount to offer. First things that come to mind are cloning highly intelligent or successful people, or growing brain dead clones for medical experimentation and organ transplants. We've managed to succesfully halt progress on these technologies and even make them unthinkable, just by having a cultural bias against them. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for AI.
  - dputtick 12y ago
    You're definitely right on the second point...especially with a few more decades of advances in transplant technology. Seems like there is a innate human revulsion towards clones that has aided/led to the formation of this cultural bias. Unsure how easy it would be to replicate those feelings towards AI. Perhaps widespread acknowledgement of the potential dangers would be the first step. Anecdotally, people seem to have trouble grasping the dangers involved. They think of the iPhone in their pocket and can't possibly see the risk. Obviously it's near impossible to put yourself in the shoes of an entity that could be orders of magnitude more intelligent than the most intelligent human.

sama 12y ago

>This has basically the highest insanity * prominence of speaker product I've ever seen. Is that two compliments in one? :) I am debating releasing a sort of part 3, which actually could be called "insanity", but you should save the criticism for that one.

fiatmoney 12y ago
Maybe in that one you could explain what about your experience with machine learning algorithms and pharma style highly regulated industries leads you to believe that turning machine learning algorithm development (not even "deployment", mind you, since in the FOOM scenario developing a self improving capability is tantamount to deploying it) into a highly regulated industry wouldn't be an unmitigated disaster.
- jal278 12y ago
  And maybe you could describe why regulating AI research must be an unmitigated disaster? If over time it proves that certain areas of research provide a clear existential threat to our species, why is it irrational to then attempt to slow down certain fields of research relative to others?

robotkilla 12y ago

120 days ago I argued here that we would most likely put regulations in place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8546701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8546701 I still think that is true, and it will most likely come from the UN. If it ends up becoming a legitimate threat we will regulate it the same way we regulate nukes - or at least we'll try to (and most likely fail miserably).

api 12y ago

"This has basically the highest insanity * prominence of speaker product I've ever seen." (I edited this post to remove my shock-induced LULZ and other flapdoodle and concentrate on the important stuff.) The more I re-read this and reflect on it, the more shocked I am. The first post in this serious was a bit of an eyebrow-raiser for me, but it still remained on the sane side of the fence. Yes, dangerous AI is worth thinking about. Lots of things are. Alien invasions aren't completely implausible either, and the Fermi Paradox is definitely worth thinking about. But this has jumped from thinking about the Fermi Paradox to arguing that we halt all radio emissions and space exploration now or the aliens will come for us. This is not a rational leap. As I said elsewhere in this thread: could this be some kind of ploy to make basic CS research illegal for anyone but deep-pocketed VC-linked concerns (and governments)? Probably not, but that could very well be the result. The sorts of regulations discussed here would make independent CS research illegal. Please tell me this "conspiracy theory" is insane. I really want to believe it is. Someone please tell me I'm crazy. Please? Anyone?

sanxiyn 12y ago
I actually think radio silence is a very rational thing to do, and Stephen Hawking agrees with me. Do not describe that issue as cut-and-dry. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/stephen-hawking-issues-warning-on-aliens http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/stephen...
- api 12y ago
  This is the problem with smart people. Here we have absolutely tangible existential threats like fossil fuel depletion and die off, and here we are fretting about aliens and AI-- two things not even proven to exist.
  - sanxiyn 12y ago
    If humanity only worried about tangible threats, it would be worse off.

iampliny 12y ago

Guess I'll start working on the algorithms to capture that regulatory system. Who wants to be co-founder?

fezz 12y ago
I'm in.