Congress is racing to regulate AI. Silicon Valley is eager to teach them how
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
FTFY
Congress: Tell us about AI. If and how we should regulate it.
Big Tech, public hearing: AI will eat the world if not regulated. Crime will be abundant. Jobs will be lost.
Big Tech, private dinner: Our unilateral control over AI will boost our stock prices.
Congress: Only companies with regulatory checks and balances can run AI.
Also congress: Buys MSFT, GOOG, META.
AI makes a lot of product easy to deliver, and startups can tool it in ways to go after entirely new product areas and domains. Big tech disassembly, a la Craigslist. Quickly. We can't have that until big tech gets a good choke hold via regulatory moat.
Also, you sont even know whay laws you want yet, and are already pointong fingers.
Now for AI's used against other countries then China will be all about that, as long as they know their place.
Or: https://archive.is/2023.06.14-134908/https://www.wsj.com/amp...
If we get AI laws they will either be misinformed or designed to entrench the current winners. I actually dont think we need AI laws. If some real problem actually does emerge in the future which warrants a new law then we can make an informed law to deal with it then.
It's best if congress treats it as a company paying humans to do the same work, where the humans are assumed to be copying the training artifacts to the output
Agree 100%. We dont need AI laws because they cut across other existing laws such as copyright, for example.
AI is the first real fundamental advance since the Internet went public. Looks like they’re trying to head it off and lock it down right away this time.
People at the companies may or may not want to do this for selfish reasons, but regardless, have been basically forced to "ask" for regulation, or face that regulation being applied against them as an existential threat to the business.
Meta seems to have possibly gotten around this through having their model "leaked", but I am not sure what else can be expected at this point. I am hopeful that community efforts will be able to make progress quickly enough so as to make regulatory capture seem more difficult.
CRISPR-cas9 is a pretty strong competitor.
CRISPR is a revelation fundamental in the machinery of cells, and gives an analog of unix sed.
To your point, it will be interesting to see if transformer architecture implementations, or theory, is widely enough recognized as fundamental advancement in science to merit the analog (Fields medal, no way, or Turing Award, maybe) of the at least 2 Nobel prizes awarded for Crispr-Cas9.
I would argue that AI has grabbed orders of magnitude more headlines in the past 6 months.
And AI is pretty damn profound, so I’m struggling to grasp the point this comment is making.
the point is that headlines are one thing, but they don't evaluate impact of a technology very well, though they do evaluate hype.
i question, is AI getting so much enthusiasm because the ideas are more widely accessible, have been prominent in sci-fi for 50 years (at least), whereas hardcore genetics tools, and recent discover of how to effect surgery on DNA as code, is appreciated by a smaller audience?
I mean, look at the sophistication required to appreciate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR_gene_editing
and pretty clearly that's a hardcore hacker effort realized in biology, and it won 2 Nobel prizes as assessed not by headline count but by the world of scientists, and that in under 10 years, which basically is amazing.
disclaimer: i come from a foot in both worlds background, so I am mega enthused (like you) about the transformers results, as well as 'computing' in genomics.
i wonder if the two worlds will soon collaborate, by the way.
Why would the US want to push this work out into other countries? i’m a little unclear about what is going on here? What are the underlying motives? Is it about votes or profits?
I worry that the conversation will move to regulating hardware purchases, e.g. needing a license to purchase more than one GPU.
Personally I don't see why GPU access shouldn't be covered by the second amendment. If the proposal is to regulate the hardware then there's a clear argument that it's 2nd amendment protected: it's not possible to simultaneously argue that AI can be weaponized while also asserting it's not protected by the 2nd amendment.
Ultimately, it's not the AI we should fear, but the people controlling it. And if the best defense against AI is more AI, then it's better if everyone can have an AI in their house, because it makes the power more diffuse, rather than concentrated within the control of a few economically dominant actors.
Attaching a note that this isn't really a "backfire", that would be the point. There is going to be a lot of value in this space, and if only Meta/Google/friends can comply with the regulation legally then they might be able to make a lot of money. The black market will be a bit of a release valve but hat they don't want is a nimble up-and-coming company that eats their lunch.
> Under the EU’s draft AI Act, open source developers would have to adhere to guidelines for risk management, data governance, technical documentation and transparency, as well as standards of accuracy and cybersecurity.
https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/06/the-eus-ai-act-could-have-...