It might be reasonable to have regulations here, but I shudder to think what form they would take, given the typical government level of technological expertise and understanding.
If (like many non-EU countries and parts of the US) you don't already have basic digital privacy laws, transparency or consumer protections, that is simply not true.
Not sure what laws would apply or how they’d be enforced based on how we treat people and say chimps, and corporations like people.
By it's nature as the execution of code, even if we reach AGI I don't consider it sentient. They wouldn't require rights unless that was required to prevent an apocalyptic scenario. Even then, that would be down to bad code rather than because they were alive.
I can see an argument that we are robots because we just execute DNA, protein, and chemical code, but I don't think that really is comparable. We live, grow, and die and then are completely dead, as opposed to being bootable and killable in a responce to flow of electricity, on the whim of someone deciding whether it is time to use the tool.
Not really. They regulate the AI itself, not the people behind it. There should be real consequences of doing something bad with it intentionally. That is the only way.
There is, it's called a judge. When they explain to him that AIs are by definition neutral and objective and are let off. I'm sure the regulations will just serve to formalize this process, by Congressionally defining AIs that satisfy some checklist of lobbied for conditions as objective and neutral. After a few years, the collective liability from taking back this declaration will keep Congress from ever reverting it.
They've been into defining things lately. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill just came too early.
I'd think that an AI system that answers questions combining both could get its makers in trouble in ways that a standard search engine finding separate results about each from separate queries probably wouldn't.
Start with public disclosure. A repository where AI firms publicly file simple, standardised information—model architecture, training sources, intended user, responsible executives, et cetera—that can guide the public and policymakers in future rulemaking.
More generally, this complaint about electeds’ domain expertise misunderstands how modern states work. Congress can’t build a plane. That doesn’t mean they can’t build the FAA.
Speaking of planes, Congress took a direct role in the design specifications of the F-35 to the detriment of that program. Notably, they required a common airframe that could support VTOL, despite objections from the Army, Navy, and Air Force (the USMC wanted it and lobbied for it). This greatly added to the complexity and cost of the program.
So don’t do that. Nothing you said is a cogent argument against regulation.
> Congress took a direct role in the design specifications of the F-35 to the detriment of that program. Notably, they required a common airframe that could support VTOL, despite objections from the Army, Navy, and Air Force
Huh, didn’t know. Source? (Genuinely curious.)
The EU just passed the AI Act based on the inputs of experts and with widespread support from its Parliament and Council.
many major tech firms skip launching entire products in the EU nowadays due to gdpr and DMA