Eric Schmidt helped write AI laws without disclosing investments in AI startups | Hacker News Reader

Eric Schmidt helped write AI laws without disclosing investments in AI startups

cnbc.com

69 pointsmfiguiere27 comments

Was anyone under the impression that Eric Schmidt wasn't investing in AI companies? Tech billionaire invests in tech companies seems pretty expected to me, even if he was doing consulting work for the Feds during the same time period.

'no indication that Schmidt broke any ethics rules'

dunno man, writing regulations for an industry I am about to invest in sounds like a breach of something

I don't think so. Schmidt didn't approve them and make them law. Telling your legislator what you want and proposing something that makes you happy isn't a breach of anything.

That is to say, there is no conflict of interest when you are only representing yourself or your opinions

Telling your legislator what you want while being a billionaire is one of the main reasons why we can’t have an actual democracy

It is possible to perform a legal action which doesn't violate any rules and which is simply unethical (the conclusion of the government ethics advisors in this case).

If the council's remit is to advise on "how to enhance American competitiveness on AI against its adversaries, build the AI workforce of the future, and develop data and ethical procedures", anyone on the council can shape policy that will pick winners and losers in the marketplace based on that "advice". You then have to wonder to whose benefit the advise really is.

The intent of the council is not and never was to provide unbiased advice.

"The commission was, by design, an outside advisory group of industry participants, and its other members included well-known tech executives including Oracle CEO Safra Catz, Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy and Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Eric Horvitz, among others."

Personal financial interests in the field was his basis for selection in the first place, and who he represents. You might not like that, but that is the purpose of the commission. Look at the commissioners yourself [1].

https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/

Seems unpersuasive to me since one now has to sweep under the rug the fact that the government's own ethics advisors find "a huge conflict of interest" in this matter.

Your quote says "industry participants" but suddenly "personal financial interest" becomes the basis for selection to this advisory board.

So what could those government ethics advisors be on about?

Government ethics advisors are obviously concerned about the industry staffed commissions. I think that's a fair question whether we should enpanel a dozen AI Tech CEOs to draft our legislation. What I object to, is turning into a hit piece against ceos, when the government explicitly sought out CEOs and executives with financial interest. If you go out and ask a dozen CEOs what they want, they're going to tell you what they want, and they should.

The person who writes a proposal decides the framework of thought. If the reader (in these cases the legislators) are not expert enough in the field, they can think that the the framework is unbiased and the correct one to think under.

This is why it is unethical to not declare any conflicts when making a proposal. It hides your biases which will likely feed into the framework.

Not disclosing a conflict of interest is unethical.

His conflict of interest is expected, it is why they picked him. It is a commission of mostly industry leaders telling the government what policy they want.

https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/

His expertise is expected and it may be reasonable for him to have such a conflict of interest.

But it should still be disclosed.

It should be part of a process with transparency baked in as well. Seems like a no brainer so I must be missing a lot of knowledge that only the people in these situations are privy to.

They picked them because he's an AI investor venture capitalist. It comes with the territory. Just like how they picked Executives of Microsoft Amazon Oracle and a dozen other companies developing AI.

If it comes with the territory then just disclose it and move on.

"I am an AI VC and invest in AI companies, AI regulation and funding impacts companies I invest in"

Here's my investment portfolio, I'd like to highlight companies X, Y and Z.

It's not unreasonable to ask for specifics and to expect those specifics to be updated when the conflict of interest changes.

This smacks of people just not wanting to be held to task for unethical behavior.

"well you should have known" isn't a reasonable defense when not saying something is a form of lie.

I still dont understand the purpose of disclosure.

It makes sense if you are trying to prevent conflicts of interest or self dealing.

However, in this instance, the purpose is to cater to their interests and deal to them.

Of course you do, what you're attempting is to slyly argue there is no conflict of interest with someone influencing laws that will affect companies they make money from because they would have invested (or had already invested) in those companies anyway.

if YOU want to personally act this way, have at it, but nothing says those around you have to give you the respect of their time.

Was it something already in the works? Seems a bit much to want people to disclose potential future investments.

To play devil's advocate here...

Would you want an advisor on any sector who had zero investment (monetary or otherwise) in that sector?

And it is totally standard in the US (and UK) for law makers themselves to invest, vote, and divest, literally being paid by the market for their support. So why shouldn't a mere advisor make a long term investment? If this behavior is wrong, ban it for everyone, don't pick on one guy because he used to work at Google...

I'd want them invested in broad indexes of the sector - somebody invested in OpenAI would be incentivized to make it illegal to open source model weights, which is great for the one company, but bad for the overall sector.

I'd also want advisors who aren't invested at all in the sector, since they can advise in a way that isn't about driving growth in the sector

This would be nice in theory - in practice there are almost never any people who meet this + actually understand the technology or industry. At least in my experience, people outside the industry don't understand it, ever. They sometimes think they do, but they don't.

This.

If someone has no conflicts of interest, they aren't really in the field. Everyone on that board had conflicts and it will always be that way. You can manage around it, sort of. It's like those who complain about the revolving door between the department of treasury and financial services industry - do we want people who actually have a clue? The only way you can get a clue in many situations is by being in the industry.

Comments seem divided on whether someone 'in' the industry is the only person that can understand the industry and whether being in it means having a vested interest.

For those of us who feel like "well duh obviously, and he should be allowed to do what he wants" I'd bring up that this is a democracy and we can simply make different rules. It is harder as a consultant to invest in an industry that you consult on than it is for a CEO who is advising on the rules that are being written for the industry. this is a problem and rather than having 'ethical considerations' we could make rules to

-limit investment

-require divestment

- disclose and review investments

None of these would be beyond the pale and really the SEC and other bodies should be way more on the ball. The fact that they aren't is a reflection of this kind of one hand washing the other that we need to get out of our government

> Eric Schmidt helped write AI laws without disclosing investments in AI startups

"If the congress does it, it must be good"

All of the members of this industry board have conflicts of interest being from industry, but having read the reports here:

nscai.gov

I thought the reports were good and I'm not sure how the conflicts would come through. Most of the advice would seem common sense to people on here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com