1,037 karma · joined June 22, 2018
With cars, we let most people use some very dangerous but also very useful tools. Our approach, as a society, to making those tools safe is multi-layered. We require driver's ed and license drivers to make sure they know how to be safe. We register cars as a tool to trace ownership. We have rules of the road that apply to drivers. We have safety rules that apply to manufacturers (and limit what they are allowed to let those tools do). If a user continues to break the rules, we revoke their license. If the manufacturer breaks the rules, we make them do a recall.
I actually agree with you 100%, this is probably a good way to think about regulating AI. Some rules apply to individual users. Some rules apply to the makers of the tools. We can come together as a society and determine where we want those lines to be. Let's do it.
and
> You'd just be increasing the costs of producing software and distribution means (thinking of stuff like YouTube). It's just setting up already powerful companies to become even more powerful by raising the bar on what potential competition must be ready for from the get-go.
These arguments could be made against any "custom" regulatory scheme like what we have for drugs, cars, airplanes, etc. But sometimes the unique harms presented by certain classes of products require unique regulatory schemes.
Maybe you're right (I hope you are) and the potential harms of AI are not really significant enough to warrant any special regulation. But I don't think that is _obviously_ the case, and I would be careful when it comes to talking with normies about this stuff - AI does seem to be really scary, and hearing a techie hand-wave their concerns over technology they don't understand has the potential to make it worse. Good luck out there buddy.
I agree here. But what about the harder questions? Do you think deepfake porn of celebrities should be allowed? What about deepfake porn of an unpopular student at the local high school?
If these aren't allowed, where is the best place to prevent them, but still has minimal impact on the allowed uses? At the root level of the software capable of producing them (what seems to be proposed in TFA)? At the user level (car analogy)? At the distribution level (copyright-style)? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I think we should all be talking and thinking about them.
What's the equivalent of that for AI? Should there be a watermark so police can trace an image back to a particular person's software? If that isn't acceptable (and I don't think it would be), how do we prevent people from producing deep fakes? At the distribution level? These are hard problems, and I don't think the car analogy really gets us anywhere.
From what I've read, the maintenance company did scour all documentation and found no explanation for why the train was disabled. It was an entirely undocumented feature. Maybe they were just lying, but this idea you have in your head that it was just a fly-by-night operation who couldn't be bothered to read the documentation is contradicted by the available public record.
From what I've read, the train operator bid out the maintenance for these trains, and the manufacturer lost the bid to a third party. So your "opt-out" system should absolutely have been triggered here.
If there was some reason to believe that the low bidder would be incapable of safely performing the maintenance, the train manufacturer should have raised that issue publicly, not silently sabotaged the low bidder's ability to perform the maintenance.
If I had to guess, I would bet that the constraints are more commercial than physical... hybrids are already very efficient, so the market for such a vehicle would probably not justify the engineering costs. But that's just a guess!
Full disclosure: I think I probably disagree with you on some points you've made in this thread, but I'm not going for any gotchas right now, I am just trying to map the contours of what you think is OK and not OK. We're all sort of flying blind on this stuff, so getting a sense of what others are thinking is really important in my mind. Appreciate the engagement.
Consider a poet who publishes poetry in some unique meter, or has some other unique stylistic structure for which they are well known... should they be allowed to sell copies of their poems that can be used for reading only, but prevents usage of those stylistic devices by other authors?
I'm going to assume that we agree the answer is "no, the author should not be able to prevent those uses" at least for human consumers of their works. This is how art has always developed... even though that use "hurts the copyright owner" by diluting the market for works with that style, the owner does NOT have the right to forbid it.
Now, let's say that same poet drew a lot of inspiration from a bunch of out-of-copyright poets. Let's also say that I train an AI model on the poet's inspirations, but NOT on the poet's work directly. Then I ask the AI to write a poem in the style of the poet's inspirations, and to include the unique stylistic device for which that poet is famous. In your world, is this OK?
I was saying that, whatever your thoughts about US military policy, its deployment patterns are not, in fact, anything like what Russia did in late 2021/early 2022.
Pointing out that the US has troops in other countries, and a massive military in general, does not address the point.
I feel like I'm wading into the middle of a lover's quarrel, where the words have nothing to do with the actual fight...
Also, you didn't answer the question: would Facebook removing my ability to post be considered "banning"?
If the logical conclusion of your reasoning is a mass mind control conspiracy, you should revisit your assumptions.
> somehow they can bully into submission basically the entire universe
I don't think anyone is bullying all of society. I think most people just don't care. It's really not that crazy, no mind control involved. Just good old fashioned apathy and ignorance.