This is paternalistic, overbearing, culturally-corrosive nonsense.
Substandard buildings, medical procedures, and cars maim and kill.
AI image generation is speech.
I won’t accept prior restraint on speech as being necessary or inevitable.
Substandard buildings, medical procedures, and cars maim and kill.
AI image generation is speech.
I won’t accept prior restraint on speech as being necessary or inevitable.
Sure, but I don’t think an AI model is speech, at least not one trained on billions of parameters and massive quantities of compute. Comparing it to regulated heavy machinery or architecture is apt.
You can’t create an AI model without huge, global industries working together to create the tools to produce said model. And baked in are all sorts of biases that if met with wide-spread adoption could likely have profound social consequences, particularly because these models aren’t easy to make, so the likelihood that they will see large amounts of adoption/use is likely, they are useful tools after all. Group prejudice in these models jumps off the page here, whether race, sex, religion, etc. but black box algorithms are fundamentally dangerous.
Speech is fundamental to the human experience, large ML models are not, and calling them speech is nuts.
I think the distinction is when a threat is “imminent”. To the point of this thread, I don’t think the dialogue has progressed enough to form a consensus on where that “imminent threshold” lies.
Teaching someone about DNA doesn’t constitute an imminent threat. But the equivalent of teaching the recipe for a biological weapon may be considered enough of an imminent risk to warrant regulation.
And yet pop culture content is speech both in a casual and in a legal/policy sense.
AI models are not identical to movies or video games, but they're not different in any of the aspects you listed. On the other hand, there is a pretty clear difference between AI models and heavy machinery or architecture: AI models cannot directly hurt or kill people in the physical world. An AI model controlling a physical system could, which is a case to have strict regulations on things like self-driving cars, but doesn't apply to the text/image/etc generation models we're talking about here. Plans for heavy machinery or buildings are not regulated until somebody tries to create them in the real world (and are also very clearly speech, even if they took a lot of engineering effort to produce). At least in the US, nobody is going to stop you from publishing plans for arbitrarily dangerous tools or buildings with narrow exceptions for defense-critical technology.
But yea, if speech can become law, it can matter quite a bit. Do we really want DALL-E generated state laws?
People are already making txt2porn sites. I'm sure they will get crazier and creepier (from my boring vanilla perspective, not judging people with eclectic tastes) as time goes by.
Hi, asking for a friend. Where did you hear about this?
As for those not considered capable of consent? Maybe this decreases the pressure to hurt more of those people? But the ethics of training seem hidiously evil to me.
It's a spectrum, like most other industries.
We all have standing to debate our shared culture and ethics.
And others are allowed to either ignore your complants, or act on them.