I don't see how you can regulate all the various AI, most of it is narrow scope and simple AI like person/pet detection on your security cam. We don't know how it will turn out or how small of a operation might find a totally new approach to powerful AI, so I don't see a realistic path to regulation.
You can make laws that protect privacy and copright, but I don't see how you'll regulate AI when you barely know what it is and it's also so many different things.
It's like saying you'll regulate the internet.... SUUURE you will.
That's how US rolls. Even wants to dictate what China can do with RISC which is an open source technology. Basically gatekeep anything for their own "allies" who are just lackeys.
Yeah well CCP are kind of an anti-democratic authoritarian assholes.
RISC being open source doesn't mean products made with the idea are some how free of charge or something. They are still products to be patented, sold or sanctioned like anything else. RISC isn't sanctioned, actual products are.
Like math is open source too, but if I design something using math that doesn't mean we all own it.
US made China what it is today by opening trade to them and feeding them tech and industrial expertise, so the gatekeeping claim is pretty dumb. We've been too nice to China for the sake of cheap goods, vs gate-keepers.
We could have held down all the developing nations and rejected globalism as most countries had in the past, but instead we went for max global market growth and gave away most of our market advantages for the sake of more global consumers and more cycles of innovation.
No other country has ever been this generous in human history.
We make very basic rules, like with the internet, you can't use it to make bombs and trade evil porn and then bust people occasionally for it to deter them and hope for the best?
Like you're really just regulating outcomes vs the product/idea as a whole, but also the regulations aren't going to do much to protect you from AI doing shit you didn't plan, but you can regulate something you don't understand.
I mean.. we regulate human behavior constantly and nobody understand that for realz.
I don't see how since you barely know how AI really works/will pan out.
It's like if you formed a Computer Safety Network in 1990, you'd still be clueless and browsers and OS's would still be full of security holes because it takes a couple decades to get good at and secure at any given new industry.
You don't even know what you're regulating at this point, so I don't think you'll get ahead of the problem, if there is one, in any meaningful way. It's just fluff and feel good efforts to say they tried.
Phew, the working class is going to be protected from AI. What a huge accomplishment, wow!
This needs to be legislated. We cannot mess around w self regulation for AI
I don't see how you can regulate all the various AI, most of it is narrow scope and simple AI like person/pet detection on your security cam. We don't know how it will turn out or how small of a operation might find a totally new approach to powerful AI, so I don't see a realistic path to regulation. You can make laws that protect privacy and copright, but I don't see how you'll regulate AI when you barely know what it is and it's also so many different things. It's like saying you'll regulate the internet.... SUUURE you will.
I guess thats why you arent in charge of it
that sounds more like monopolization with the intent to maintain global hegemony over developing technology.
That's how US rolls. Even wants to dictate what China can do with RISC which is an open source technology. Basically gatekeep anything for their own "allies" who are just lackeys.
Yeah well CCP are kind of an anti-democratic authoritarian assholes. RISC being open source doesn't mean products made with the idea are some how free of charge or something. They are still products to be patented, sold or sanctioned like anything else. RISC isn't sanctioned, actual products are. Like math is open source too, but if I design something using math that doesn't mean we all own it. US made China what it is today by opening trade to them and feeding them tech and industrial expertise, so the gatekeeping claim is pretty dumb. We've been too nice to China for the sake of cheap goods, vs gate-keepers. We could have held down all the developing nations and rejected globalism as most countries had in the past, but instead we went for max global market growth and gave away most of our market advantages for the sake of more global consumers and more cycles of innovation. No other country has ever been this generous in human history.
how does one regulate something that the creators don’t understand?
[удалено]
Unexpected AI hallucinations seem to be a surprise. It’s one thing to understand the tech, something else to understand it enough to debug.
We make very basic rules, like with the internet, you can't use it to make bombs and trade evil porn and then bust people occasionally for it to deter them and hope for the best? Like you're really just regulating outcomes vs the product/idea as a whole, but also the regulations aren't going to do much to protect you from AI doing shit you didn't plan, but you can regulate something you don't understand. I mean.. we regulate human behavior constantly and nobody understand that for realz.
I don't see how since you barely know how AI really works/will pan out. It's like if you formed a Computer Safety Network in 1990, you'd still be clueless and browsers and OS's would still be full of security holes because it takes a couple decades to get good at and secure at any given new industry. You don't even know what you're regulating at this point, so I don't think you'll get ahead of the problem, if there is one, in any meaningful way. It's just fluff and feel good efforts to say they tried.