Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonethewiser | Hacker News Reader

As real as regulatory capture is, alternatively, do we actually want congress to make laws based off their poor understanding of what AI is and where its going?

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.

View on HN

Some US Senators were already giving Meta a hard time about releasing LLaMA to researchers, saying that centralization is "safer" to control and regulate. I couldn't help but think of the "We have no moat" leak, and to think that those senators were well-informed about the business side of the emerging AI duopoly.

I don't think ai is different enough from the rest of software, and even creative works to warrant needing dedicated ai experts guiding congress.

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

> I don't think ai is different enough from the rest of software, and even creative works to warrant needing dedicated ai experts guiding congress.

Agree 100%. We dont need AI laws because they cut across other existing laws such as copyright, for example.

Hot take: I’d be open to laws around opt in vs opt out for what is considered available for training data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com