Hacker News Reader

Comment by samstave | Hacker News Reader

Who is, or is seeking to be, the canonical source of truth for AI, ML etc policy/position/etc and why should/how do we trust them?

In twenty years, what body will be directing the policies and laws regulations etc WRT to how humanity deals with essentially what is another "sentient" species?

Edit.. just read this and apparently this is exactly what the EFF is attempting to do...

But the question still remains: how do we trust these policies, how do we request/reject them?

I don't want to deal with this the same way the legal system is currently set up, lawyers and the law is flawed in many respects and I don't think it's a good idea to map the old to the new and uncharted directly.

(Apologies for the clunky language/terms.. please educate me on how to speak of this if you know)

View on HN

You're asking great questions :)

EFF isn't necessarily a fan of the way that current institutions of governance or the law operate, but when those institutions attempt to interfere with the development of technology, we step in to try to mitigate the damage and make the case for sensible outcomes.

In the case of general-purpose human level AI, which to be clear is an extremely speculative kind of technology that might not happen in our lifetimes, I don't think anybody knows how humanity would deal with it. If it does happen, I think the biggest responsibility of participants in that process would be to minimize the risk of instability and conflict while humans and the new species (possibly species, plural; possibly not a species at all), figured out how to relate to each other.

How best to accomplish that is largely a very difficult and mostly unanswered research question, though you can find some pointers to some interesting early work in the safety section of the Notebook.

If we cant determine when/if we will get on parity with humans in AI capability... we should be focused on AI as a tool that will be used by those with the know-how-resources against those who do not have ability/access;

Rich vs poor:

* HFT will never be a common man's tool

* Government surveillance

* Corporate surveillance

* Behaviorally informed/adjusted pricing etc...

Basically ML and AI will be used, in large part, by those who can to exploit those who cannot (or at least those who wont) defend themselves.

There will be no opting out.

So, with that said, if we go from the bottom up - and there is no opting out, then what is the best that one can hope for? I'd say complete ownership and control of one's own "meta-cloud" -- Any data that is a resultant trail of any action I take as an individual should be owned by me, and I should be able to see it all, and delete or block it.

Or, in the extreme case, shouldn't I be able to require that any information presented to me (such as an ad or a price) be required to inform me as to how that information was formulated:

"You are seeing this price because the following factors were analysed..."

The real question is, in the future, is there even such a concept as "off grid"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com