Hacker News Reader

Comment by soco | Hacker News Reader

The regulation is meant to protect the EU citizens which couldn't care less about the financial incentives of a US company or their hype du jour. If hypothetically no AI can be created with respecting the citizens, what should the choice be, block or accept Skynet? (I said "hypothetically")

View on HN

I am curious, do you think SkyNet, if it's really "SkyNet", can be blocked within the confines of the country in which it appears first?

And if it's not SkyNet but just an awesome tool like ChatGPT is today, do you think regulators will manage to take into consideration the advantages lost making this tool illegal while protecting us from a potential SkyNet?

Suppose a new generation of AIs results in a big economy boost. Then a country might be put in a position to choose between some risks to privacy etc and a risk of being left behind.

A similar situation would be a country that in 1900 decides whether or not to outlaw cars.

Nobody outlawed cars.

In the UK we did mandate that a pedestrian must walk in front of the car with a red flag to warn of the approaching vehicle though for a while!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws#Red_flag...

There were preciously little regulations in the 1900s though. Don't you think if cars were invented today they would face a whole lot of regulations?

Cars do face a ton of regulations today. You can’t sell a car if it doesn’t meet or exceed hundreds of regulations.

1900s also had child labor and black lung. Not a standard to aspire to.

> If hypothetically no AI can be created with respecting the citizens

The problem is you're assuming the people writing the regulations are perfect. It's not that bad AI should exist, it's that we're probably at least a decade away from regulators even having a hope of starting to understand what's going on.

Why should I assume anything? We are what we are and we do what we can with what we have - imperfect as it is. Inactivity is way worse. By the way understanding all things (AI or whatever) is definitely not a requirement for the legislators. I'm sure you remember they have hordes of specialists in their staff and those will understand the aspects at hand to sketch recommendations.

It's not legislators, although I disagree with your assessment there. The people actually doing assessments and inspections of companies do not have much expertise at all. Even for far simpler technical tasks than assessing AI.

As an EU citizen I think it's about joining SkyNet or falling behind in productivity. I prefer joining SkyNet.

If, hypothetically, a SkyNet like AI actually existed, how much damage to humanity would you be ok with as long as productivity and quality of life went up went up for those who were spared? Let's assume that you and your loved ones are among those who have been guaranteed safety by this AI.

I am sorry if the tone comes across as snarky. Not my intention. Genuinely curious.

My comment was about if it's starting to exist, EU regulatation won't stop its power and influence.

If everyone uses ChatSkyNet for programming (or even ChatGPT-4), but EU is not allowed, EU will simply lose its competitiveness in creating products.

Sadly, the EU has already lost that competitiveness through many other similar regulatory situations. The real risk is not competitiveness in creating products, that's a lost battle already :( The real risk is losing competitiveness in even being able to work for the American companies that are creating products.

> My comment was about if it's starting to exist, EU regulatation won't stop its power and influence.

it... might?

it possibly existing in the future is not a good reason to lay down and just surrender control of world governance to ChatGPT today

Reply on news.ycombinator.com