The corrupt battle over regulating AI

[Craig234]

With all the talk about the dangers of AI, you'd think the elected government would have the role to regulate that danger.

trump has a "tech advisor" who is a tech billionaire venture capitalist, David Sacks, and a tight relationship with radical tech billionaires including Musk and Thiel and others, giving them whatever they want in exchange for their money and support.

That advisor - and therefore Republicans - are pushing for a 10 year ban on states passing any regulation of AI. Any state that passes any regulation will lose any federal funding for AI.

Meanwhile, California is considering a bill to ban the use of AI from decisions in disciplining or firing workers, requiring a human to decide. Gifted article:

California’s ‘No Robo Bosses Act’ advances, taking aim at artificial intelligence in the workplace

If passed, SB 7 would bar employers from relying ‘primarily’ on automated decision-making software for promotion, discipline or firing of employees.

www.mercurynews.com

 

[ASHES]

The problem with regulating it immediately is it will stifle innovation and China (and others but mostly China) will immediately gain an advantage. They're already well advanced in the technology and the hardware of running it. We've already seen how useful it can be as a dual use weapon in war. We don't want to fall behind.

The cat is already out of the bag really. Indistinguishable from reality video generation is already here. There are already a lot of laws in place to prevent the kind of abuse that is possible. Just some examples need to be made.

 

[aociswundumho]

With all the talk about the dangers of AI, you'd think the elected government would have the role to regulate that danger.

Yes, let's have congress regulate AI, that's a great idea.

 

[bomberfox]

The problem with regulating it immediately is it will stifle innovation and China (and others but mostly China) will immediately gain an advantage. They're already well advanced in the technology and the hardware of running it. We've already seen how useful it can be as a dual use weapon in war. We don't want to fall behind.

The cat is already out of the bag really. Indistinguishable from reality video generation is already here. There are already a lot of laws in place to prevent the kind of abuse that is possible. Just some examples need to be made.

Ahh no laws are being circumvented for Elon to build his wasteful AI center that is poisoning the air in kentucky. Actually video generation is VERY distinguishable. If China wants to destroy their own air quality and their own art let em.

 

[ASHES]

Ahh no laws are being circumvented for Elon to build his wasteful AI center that is poisoning the air in kentucky.

I don't think gutting the EPA helps with that kind of situation.

Actually video generation is VERY distinguishable. If China wants to destroy their own air quality and their own art let em.

It used to be. Now it's to a point where it could fool 90-95% of the audience. Video generation isn't the only use, but it is a significant one. The potential for indistinguishable videos on propaganda is going to be insane. AI photos are already being used and have to be accounted for in war reporting.

 

[bomberfox]

I don't think gutting the EPA helps with that kind of situation.


It used to be. Now it's to a point where it could fool 90-95% of the audience. Video generation isn't the only use, but it is a significant one. The potential for indistinguishable videos on propaganda is going to be insane. AI photos are already being used and have to be accounted for in war reporting.

He actually subverted local laws to do it. I think this AI stuff is actually bad for humanity.

 

[ASHES]

He actually subverted local laws to do it. I think this AI stuff is actually bad for humanity.

That's right, indistinguishable. Voices and everything.

 

[Craig234]

The problem with regulating it immediately is it will stifle innovation and China (and others but mostly China) will immediately gain an advantage. They're already well advanced in the technology and the hardware of running it. We've already seen how useful it can be as a dual use weapon in war. We don't want to fall behind.

I disagree. You are conflating developing technology and application. The technology can be developed; the problem is allowing it to be used to harm people. You do not have to allow that use to keep up in the research. And it's important that we protect people.

 

[ASHES]

I disagree. You are conflating developing technology and application. The technology can be developed; the problem is allowing it to be used to harm people. You do not have to allow that use to keep up in the research. And it's important that we protect people.

I wish I agreed. Its already being used to propagandize, and to hurt people in war, and in our own society in petty squabbles. Don't see how regulations will change any of that.

 

[Craig234]

I wish I agreed. Its already being used to propagandize, and to hurt people in war, and in our own society in petty squabbles. Don't see how regulations will change any of that.

You're partly right. It is used in a genocide and California regulations won't change that. But look at the example in bill: prohibiting allowing AI to replace humans in worker discipline and firing. That is doable and it is sensible and it is helpful. An allowing those things is not needed to keep up in the AI race.

 

[ASHES]

You're partly right. It is used in a genocide and California regulations won't change that. But look at the example in bill: prohibiting allowing AI to replace humans in worker discipline and firing. That is doable and it is sensible and it is helpful. An allowing those things is not needed to keep up in the AI race.

There are lawyers that used it in court with made up citations. There's already laws against that. Laws will not stop people from using it like that, even a little.

 

[Craig234]

There are lawyers that used it in court with made up citations. There's already laws against that. Laws will not stop people from using it like that, even a little.

Yes, they would. Can you link the laws there are already?

 

[ASHES]

You want the law that lawyers aren't allowed to submit AI generated documents to a court? You could start with perjury.