Buildings don’t cross borders.
Code is information, and information wants to, and will be free.
Short of a North Korea like setup, regulations can only slow down the spread of information around the world.
Code is information, and information wants to, and will be free.
Short of a North Korea like setup, regulations can only slow down the spread of information around the world.
AI is all fun and games when it's data, but if it's being used to make decisions about how to take actions in the physical world I think it's fair that it follows some protocols each society gives it. Making a picture of a cat from a learned model, writing a book with a model, cool, whatever. Deciding who gets their house raided, or when to apply the brakes on an EV, or what drugs should be administered to a patient, we probably want to make sure the apparatus that does this, which includes the code, the data and the models, is held to some rules a society agrees upon.
The model was unable to give any useful predictions. I don't know if it would perform better without the deliberate limitations, but I do know that healthcare staff are making their own judgements in it's absence.
But the development and proliferation of AI by extralegal entities cannot be stopped. Individuals, foreign researchers, foreign business, etc will keep pushing the frontier of AI forward indefinitely.
AI can be regulated but it cannot be controlled.
"A metal strip on the floor of Eurode Business Center marks the border between Germany and the Netherlands.
On one side of the building, there's a German mailbox and a German policeman. On the other side, a Dutch mailbox and a Dutch policeman."
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/09/158375183/the-...
Water "wants" to flow downhill. Gasses "want" to expand to fill their container. Genes "wanting" to replicate drive animals literally wanting to reproduce, and the incidental awareness of that drive in some species comes down to a certain molecular arrangement brought about by said genes. The genes are data, the minds are data, and the natural pressure is that that data which succeeds in reproducing will tend to keep reproducing. So in the original sense of the notion of memes as proposed by Dawkins, yes, information "wants" to be free, as that is its tendency. The only other option is that said data ultimately dies out.
If you're old, you say speech. If you're younger and watch any integration modern technology into life, you'd say both.
But at the end of the day, your viewpoint doesn't matter. What does matter is when the 'average person' feels unsafe by this 'informational speech' as you like to call it, that it will be banned and restricted and you will be punished under the full force of the law for trafficking in it. Your neighbors will cheer as you're dragged out of your house by a swat team for being an evil terrorist. SCOTUS will make whatever finding is politically expedient for the majority parties point of view that is the majority at the time, and you will rot in prison until you die of old age.
So, your choices are attempting to setup a regulatory framework to minimize the dystopian hellscape your ideas will create or embrace the dystopian hellscape.
You have a cite for this actually happening with respect to a work of art in the United States in recent years?
I'm not sure that's factual, but even if it were, built objects certainly do.