AI companies will need to report their safety tests to the US government(apnews.com)
apnews.com
AI companies will need to report their safety tests to the US government
https://apnews.com/article/biden-ai-artificial-intelligence-safe-395591bcde523416db88767fa54f30f5
13 comments
Yeah the genie is out of the bottle. Any regulations a government sets up just puts its economy behind the competition. I think a lot of the US regulations are coming from large tech companies (google) feeling threatened. LLMs used for knowledge and skills transfer threaten search and therefore ads. If you can make it illegal or impractical then you don’t have to compete.
> Any regulations a government sets up just puts its economy behind the competition.
I fully expect us to do this in Europe. Then complain in 10 years when all the big AI tech comes from abroad.
I fully expect us to do this in Europe. Then complain in 10 years when all the big AI tech comes from abroad.
The whole drumbeat from OpenAI has always looked like using regulation to create a moat out of thin air.
Are any of the open models in danger of disappearing soon? Should I be downloading local copies before it is to late?
Are any of the open models in danger of disappearing soon? Should I be downloading local copies before it is to late?
I feel like this one is impossible to do right. On one side, it's people like you saying: 'government oversight is hurting our innovation'. Directly opposed is: 'AI Companies are growing too fast and something bad will happen if oversight doesn't come soon.'
I agree with both and really don't have a clue what's the wise thing to do. I think it's probably the oversight thing, but since other countries will definitely compete without this oversight, someone will eventually release SkyNet. But do we want to be the first?
I don't know...
I agree with both and really don't have a clue what's the wise thing to do. I think it's probably the oversight thing, but since other countries will definitely compete without this oversight, someone will eventually release SkyNet. But do we want to be the first?
I don't know...
We know that excessive premature regulation by captive government agencies hurts innovation and empowers competing nations. We don't know that AI companies are growing too fast, or that Something Bad Will Happen if oversight doesn't come soon.
Seems like an easy choice. We'd never have left the caves if we allowed the precautionary principle to dictate our lives.
Seems like an easy choice. We'd never have left the caves if we allowed the precautionary principle to dictate our lives.
Why are we in a rush to "compete with China" on this front? I don't exactly view that country as the bastions of a government who wants to promote the welfare of its citizens. They already I famously don't comply with copyright but no one is. Clamoring to take out the patent office to "compete".
What is being a few years behind on China going to do to the western economy to make it not worth slowing down and considering the ethical quandaries? We know from last decade how hard it can be to regulate back issues once companies overreach.
What is being a few years behind on China going to do to the western economy to make it not worth slowing down and considering the ethical quandaries? We know from last decade how hard it can be to regulate back issues once companies overreach.
If AI turns out to be no big deal, then you're right, there's no rush to compete. And there's also no rush to regulate. Conversely, if AI turns out to to be a huge deal, then we certainly won't end up wishing we'd held ourselves back with regulation while rival/adversary nations plowed forward at full speed.
Look at the people who will be doing the regulating. They'll get right on it after they decide which flavor of genocide to support, what books your local library gets to purchase, and who gets to use what restroom.
Basically there is almost zero upside to early government intervention, but the potential downside to regulation is unbounded. That makes it a very easy call, to my way of thinking.
Look at the people who will be doing the regulating. They'll get right on it after they decide which flavor of genocide to support, what books your local library gets to purchase, and who gets to use what restroom.
Basically there is almost zero upside to early government intervention, but the potential downside to regulation is unbounded. That makes it a very easy call, to my way of thinking.
Since there is no regulatory response that can deal with unknown unknowns like your second point, the correct answer is to not regulate for now.
[deleted]
Didn't China also issue a ruling that AI should conform to proper socialist values? I'm not sure how they are enforcing that though, Biden's executive order seems to have a lot more teeth (and even then, there is no standard yet, they just want information shared).
I can appreciate that the model might be trained to work on primarily chinese language, but the performance for me really doesnt seem to be there yet.
I hate to do the "I asked ai and pasted it here" style of comment, but I really wanted to understand the validity of the claim it surpasses gpt4 in all those benchmarks. I asked gpt4 and qwen-vl-max this prompt to try to get a sense of their capabilities. Nothing even close imo.
"tell me a story about relations between people living on one side of a penny floating through space and the other. Use the format of the hero's journey, including rejecting the call, focus on worldbuilding by hinting at further complexity, and do it in a kafkaesque style"
quen's story starts with: Once upon a time, there was a penny floating through space.
gpt 4: Through the vast emptiness of space drifted an ancient penny, a relic from a long-forgotten Earth.
The difference is night and day atm. Ask yourself: would Kafka have started a story with "once upon a time"
I hate to do the "I asked ai and pasted it here" style of comment, but I really wanted to understand the validity of the claim it surpasses gpt4 in all those benchmarks. I asked gpt4 and qwen-vl-max this prompt to try to get a sense of their capabilities. Nothing even close imo.
"tell me a story about relations between people living on one side of a penny floating through space and the other. Use the format of the hero's journey, including rejecting the call, focus on worldbuilding by hinting at further complexity, and do it in a kafkaesque style"
quen's story starts with: Once upon a time, there was a penny floating through space.
gpt 4: Through the vast emptiness of space drifted an ancient penny, a relic from a long-forgotten Earth.
The difference is night and day atm. Ask yourself: would Kafka have started a story with "once upon a time"
I don't think we can extrapolate much from that anecdote, but I'll try. The GPT version was predictably wordy and had the signature precocious high-school essay feeling, e.g. lots of adjectives. It didn't feel Kafkaesque at all, where is the confusion, breathless tone, mysterious K.?
Qwen's is pretty unremarkable, just very direct, but I don't see that one is actually following directions better. Maybe further along the difference gets more stark. Also, isn't Qwen a Chinese-first model? How much of the fine tuning was in English?
Neither example gets too actual utility, though it could highlight the sort of demo that chatgpt is trained for.
Qwen's is pretty unremarkable, just very direct, but I don't see that one is actually following directions better. Maybe further along the difference gets more stark. Also, isn't Qwen a Chinese-first model? How much of the fine tuning was in English?
Neither example gets too actual utility, though it could highlight the sort of demo that chatgpt is trained for.
that's fair. I just didn't want to paste a massive text block so went with the first line, which showed the extremely basic way of starting quen used. Link to the pastebin below (actually ended up being anonpate, seems like pastebin is down for me?)
I felt the overall writing & characterization of gpt4 was far better, including themes of bureaucracy and psychosis whereas quen sounds like a cliched 6 year old writing an aimless story.
I'm not saying either of these are amazing stories, but I think any english teacher/creative writing teacher would rate one over the other as things stand right now. Things like the comparing the rows of wheat embossed on the penny to the regimented way of life its people lead are actually half decent.
https://anonpaste.pw/v/ccbfb3e8-746f-4311-9db4-cedbf6c3a440#...
I felt the overall writing & characterization of gpt4 was far better, including themes of bureaucracy and psychosis whereas quen sounds like a cliched 6 year old writing an aimless story.
I'm not saying either of these are amazing stories, but I think any english teacher/creative writing teacher would rate one over the other as things stand right now. Things like the comparing the rows of wheat embossed on the penny to the regimented way of life its people lead are actually half decent.
https://anonpaste.pw/v/ccbfb3e8-746f-4311-9db4-cedbf6c3a440#...
Well let's say congrats to them then, because we will all benefit back from that, especially since they work more in open way as we can download the Qwen-VL-Max model, inspect it and use it offline.
Europe is copying ChatGPT, and all we got is a louzy LLaMA-fork.
Europe is copying ChatGPT, and all we got is a louzy LLaMA-fork.
Definitely congrats to them. I don't hate on Mistral though; their open-source models are extremely capable for their size and parameter count, and Mistral Medium is second only to GPT-4 on the Chatbot Arena (I'm not including Bard, since Bard gives their chatbot access to the internet, whereas the other models are being interacted with solely on the basis of their innate knowledge; that doesn't seem apples-to-apples, and the underlying Gemini Pro model without access to the internet underperforms GPT-4 and Mistral). And Mistral Medium is much cheaper than GPT-4 — around $8/million tokens, whereas GPT-4-Turbo is $30/million tokens. So I'd say Mistral is doing a decent job.
With this kind of regulatory regime I wonder how much of the next wave of AI companies are going to be started abroad... I sort of doubt Mistral is the last one, even though the U.S. has such high talent density.
With this kind of regulatory regime I wonder how much of the next wave of AI companies are going to be started abroad... I sort of doubt Mistral is the last one, even though the U.S. has such high talent density.
> and Mistral Medium is second only to GPT-4 on the Chatbot Arena
..Chatbot Arena is an incredibly flawed metric. Incredibly biased towards English, and towards certain kinds of tasks people are more likely to test on Chatbot Arena.
If you use a broad range of tasks, let alone in a diverse range of languages, unfortunately GPT-4 is still miles ahead of Mistral. I wish it wasn't the case, hope Mistral catches up as soon as possible.
..Chatbot Arena is an incredibly flawed metric. Incredibly biased towards English, and towards certain kinds of tasks people are more likely to test on Chatbot Arena.
If you use a broad range of tasks, let alone in a diverse range of languages, unfortunately GPT-4 is still miles ahead of Mistral. I wish it wasn't the case, hope Mistral catches up as soon as possible.
Would've been great if anyone disagreeing could've highlighted why, but alas. If you've tried Mistral on some creative tasks in a wide range of languages and found it competitive with GPT-4, please do tell.
I agree with you it's great that Mistral exists and the efforts they do are very useful.
I'm sure they are going to improve, but compared to what you have shown it's still more of a garage-shop.
(Is Mistral worth 2B+ EUR ? That's another question).
In one way or another, such regulation already implicitly exist in all the countries where there is no First Amendment equivalent.
Perhaps a workaround would be to claim that this is free speech protected by the Fist Amendment and shouldn't be controlled.
(Back to Mistral and regulations), in France, for example, there are certain words or things you cannot write or say without risking to go to jail (in theory, but in practice it's mostly fines), or if you spread certain historical "fake news".
I'm sure they are going to improve, but compared to what you have shown it's still more of a garage-shop.
(Is Mistral worth 2B+ EUR ? That's another question).
In one way or another, such regulation already implicitly exist in all the countries where there is no First Amendment equivalent.
Perhaps a workaround would be to claim that this is free speech protected by the Fist Amendment and shouldn't be controlled.
(Back to Mistral and regulations), in France, for example, there are certain words or things you cannot write or say without risking to go to jail (in theory, but in practice it's mostly fines), or if you spread certain historical "fake news".
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/how-googles-former-ceo-eric-...
> “If you’re going to be leading a commission that is steering the direction of government AI and making recommendations for how we should promote this sector and scientific exploration in this area, you really shouldn’t also be dipping your hand in the pot and helping yourself to AI investments,” said Shaub of the Project on Government Oversight.
> “If you’re going to be leading a commission that is steering the direction of government AI and making recommendations for how we should promote this sector and scientific exploration in this area, you really shouldn’t also be dipping your hand in the pot and helping yourself to AI investments,” said Shaub of the Project on Government Oversight.
This is some terrible reporting. If you actually read the executive order[0], while there is lip service paid to several general issues associated with AI like job displacement and privacy violation, they actually are pretty narrow in what they mean by AI safety. They're specifically looking to restrict access to AI models that can be used to aid biological weapons development by modelling complex biochemical interactions.
While I'm unconvinced this is the best way to tackle the issue, and there's always the possibility for overreach, the story as presented, namely that AI companies are about to become burdened with a vast and nebulous regulatory infrastructure prompted by vague and poorly informed fears about AI, is bunk.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
While I'm unconvinced this is the best way to tackle the issue, and there's always the possibility for overreach, the story as presented, namely that AI companies are about to become burdened with a vast and nebulous regulatory infrastructure prompted by vague and poorly informed fears about AI, is bunk.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
Will not be enforceable imo, not sure if it is even constitutional - like it or not, output of AI engines is a type of free-speech. (and no, not that 'AI' has free speech rights, the creators of the AI do)
You're not sure if it's constitutional to regulate the sale of products or services to ensure that they're safe?
Congress has the enumerated right to regulate commerce. This, being an executive order, is not an act of Congress. Consider the agencies you may be thinking of: FDA, FTC, FCC, etc. All have actual laws defining their scope. This is an overreach of the executive.
Sure, but it's not like we're waiting for Congress to do that. It's not like the Department of Commerce hasn't been created, or that the Secretary of Commerce doesn't exist in the President's cabinet. The quasi-legislative agencies are not the sole source of regulation in the United States.
Executive orders are also useful as temporary legal framework while Congress works on broader laws. As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Even if they don't carry the force of law to any relevant quasi-legislative officers, they give businesses a framework to work within while Congress works.
Executive orders are also useful as temporary legal framework while Congress works on broader laws. As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Even if they don't carry the force of law to any relevant quasi-legislative officers, they give businesses a framework to work within while Congress works.
Congress can only regulate commerce between states. If someone trained a model completely in state and then sold it to folks within the state, the commerce clause wouldn't apply.
*Of course, you have to make sure no internet traverses state lines. Better to keep it off the web to be safe.
*Of course, you have to make sure no internet traverses state lines. Better to keep it off the web to be safe.
Growing wheat on your own land for your own use all within one state is regulated as interstate commerce because you didn't buy wheat produced in another state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
The explanation is: "Congress may use its Commerce Power to regulate or prohibit activities provided the economic effects of such activities are substantial."
Note that "substantial" is not wrt what an individual does but "what if everyone did that?"
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
The explanation is: "Congress may use its Commerce Power to regulate or prohibit activities provided the economic effects of such activities are substantial."
Note that "substantial" is not wrt what an individual does but "what if everyone did that?"
Yes. I'm quite familiar with this blantant misinterpretation of the Constitution. The logic is flawed at its core. What if my friend tells me a joke? I may not go to pay to see a comdeian. That would have nth order effects on commerce as a whole.
Honestly, Filburn v. Whitaker was my biggest wake up call that the US is a complete farce with absolutely corrupt checks and balances.
Couple that with other outcomes like Hylton v. United States, where the SC argued that a clear direct tax was actually a usage tax and not subject to apportionment. Plenty of examples of SCOTUS relabeling an activity to say it's fine when it's in clear violation of the Constitution.
Honestly, Filburn v. Whitaker was my biggest wake up call that the US is a complete farce with absolutely corrupt checks and balances.
Couple that with other outcomes like Hylton v. United States, where the SC argued that a clear direct tax was actually a usage tax and not subject to apportionment. Plenty of examples of SCOTUS relabeling an activity to say it's fine when it's in clear violation of the Constitution.
Product safety for consumer products seems to be directly in the FTC's domain.
No, that would be the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Congress should be in charge of that, they legislate not the president.
You’re being intentionally obtuse and not addressing the point OP made, which is that AI is likely to be interpreted by the courts as a form of expression which makes it protected by the first amendment.
It would be similarly a violation if, say, the sale of newspapers was regulated. I suspect you know this but you want to make a glib Twitter style comment rather than have a real discussion.
It would be similarly a violation if, say, the sale of newspapers was regulated. I suspect you know this but you want to make a glib Twitter style comment rather than have a real discussion.
No, I'm refusing to be obtuse in claiming that this regulation only about software. It's about selling a product or service that a business claims is performing something accurately and correctly. We all know it's about money. There wouldn't be any interest at all if people didn't think there were billions of dollars to make selling this stuff.
Your right to free speech is not magically absolute. It does not supercede the rights to life, security, and safety. You can't sell snake oil. You can't claim your product does something it doesn't, or that your service does something it doesn't.
Nobody wants to an AI doctor that gets the diagnosis wrong half of the time, or an AI pharmacist that forgets to account for drug contraindications sometimes to be available for sale on the market. Nobody wants an AI self-driving car that rams into a pedestrian without even slowing down. Nobody wants AI load-testing software to forget that steel bolts aren't infinitely ductile.
If you want to bring a product to market, you don't get to just slap a "NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED" on it because it's software. That never actually worked.
Your right to free speech is not magically absolute. It does not supercede the rights to life, security, and safety. You can't sell snake oil. You can't claim your product does something it doesn't, or that your service does something it doesn't.
Nobody wants to an AI doctor that gets the diagnosis wrong half of the time, or an AI pharmacist that forgets to account for drug contraindications sometimes to be available for sale on the market. Nobody wants an AI self-driving car that rams into a pedestrian without even slowing down. Nobody wants AI load-testing software to forget that steel bolts aren't infinitely ductile.
If you want to bring a product to market, you don't get to just slap a "NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED" on it because it's software. That never actually worked.
We've had close to a 100 years of drug prohibition which disagrees with this notion
selling illegal drugs is not free speech.
Paper is not free speech. Writing is. Government can't stop you from writing things down but it can tell you what trees you cannot cut down.
An llm as is is simply a tree. It cannot produce speech by itself, and even if it did modern robotics are not considered citizens (we can deal with that when it comes).
An llm as is is simply a tree. It cannot produce speech by itself, and even if it did modern robotics are not considered citizens (we can deal with that when it comes).
I'm not sure this argument makes sense, could you perhaps elaborate? Not everything you create that has output goes under free speech. A torrent client is also a program that you can write that outputs art/text/whatever, doesn't mean it goes under free speech.
The federal executive doesn’t regulate the BitTorrent protocol fyi. Copyright infringement is a civil matter.
[deleted]
I have no idea about the legal reality but it does feel interesting. Language models don't really "say" stuff, they predict array indicies probabilistically. In that kind of reductive view, it's the same as a classifier which afaik can be regulated (say against discrimination).
Otoh if you take the view that the sum of LLM predictions is a kind of speech at the instigation of the operator, maybe...
A lot of this should be moot. Whatever Llama or whatever predicts or says, it isn't dangerous. Regulating what an LLM can generate is like banning books. Regulating specific outcomes is a different story. If I make a chatbot that gives bad medical advice, I don't see any legal difference vs giving bad medic advice without the chatbot and that can be regulated and litigated accordingly. The "AI" angle is mostly just a trojan horse to try and exert more control in the name of defeating some boogeyman.
Otoh if you take the view that the sum of LLM predictions is a kind of speech at the instigation of the operator, maybe...
A lot of this should be moot. Whatever Llama or whatever predicts or says, it isn't dangerous. Regulating what an LLM can generate is like banning books. Regulating specific outcomes is a different story. If I make a chatbot that gives bad medical advice, I don't see any legal difference vs giving bad medic advice without the chatbot and that can be regulated and litigated accordingly. The "AI" angle is mostly just a trojan horse to try and exert more control in the name of defeating some boogeyman.
At the risk of hyperbole:
It seems that, as AI becomes the prevalent model for human-computer interaction, requirements like this are not merely stifling to AI (and to the speech, press, and even religious protections that may arise from such interactions), but stifling to general-purpose computing.
Along with increasing "protect the children" sockpuppetry like we have in the bill in the Florida house yesterday - which seem to seek a future in which internet access requires the furnishing of a state ID - actions like this (which you will note did not even come from an additional act of Congress) appear to be rather vulgar measures to prevent technology from empowering anyone who doesn't already have power.
It seems that, as AI becomes the prevalent model for human-computer interaction, requirements like this are not merely stifling to AI (and to the speech, press, and even religious protections that may arise from such interactions), but stifling to general-purpose computing.
Along with increasing "protect the children" sockpuppetry like we have in the bill in the Florida house yesterday - which seem to seek a future in which internet access requires the furnishing of a state ID - actions like this (which you will note did not even come from an additional act of Congress) appear to be rather vulgar measures to prevent technology from empowering anyone who doesn't already have power.
AI companies want to make completely unengineered systems with no systematic guarantee that they work or even knowledge of how they work, and then try to displace as much human labor as possible in as many critical points of control as possible. This is literally the goal of anyone seeking AGI.
In my view, stifling this is a benefit, not a drawback.
In my view, stifling this is a benefit, not a drawback.
> try to displace as much human labor as possible
> stifling this is a benefit
I suppose this depends in part on how much value you place on keeping the world a laborious place for humans.
Reducing the need for labor will almost certainly lead to more beauty in the world. If we aren't seeking a world where humans are freed from menial labor and so have bandwidth to make art and music, what are we actually seeking?
Perhaps this needs to be defined first by the AI-luddites and then a more reasoned discussion can follow.
> stifling this is a benefit
I suppose this depends in part on how much value you place on keeping the world a laborious place for humans.
Reducing the need for labor will almost certainly lead to more beauty in the world. If we aren't seeking a world where humans are freed from menial labor and so have bandwidth to make art and music, what are we actually seeking?
Perhaps this needs to be defined first by the AI-luddites and then a more reasoned discussion can follow.
This was a better argument when AI wasn't making art and music.
EDIT: For what it's worth, no I don't want people to have to do menial labor or whatnot. I just see no reason to expect AGI to make people's lives better if those people have nothing to economically contribute.
EDIT: For what it's worth, no I don't want people to have to do menial labor or whatnot. I just see no reason to expect AGI to make people's lives better if those people have nothing to economically contribute.
Sounds like the problem is not AI but a society that is structured so that people can only live comfortably if they are economically productive.
Well, yeah. In a post scarcity society with UBI I don't care how much AI is used as long as I have options. As it is, the economy is on the fall and everything is becoming more expensive.
How am I supposed to sympathize with technology that is so far aimed at replacing jobs and having the robber barons on top gain even more money? They've long since burned their goodwill so those benefits aren't coming back to the working (or former working) class.
How am I supposed to sympathize with technology that is so far aimed at replacing jobs and having the robber barons on top gain even more money? They've long since burned their goodwill so those benefits aren't coming back to the working (or former working) class.
As I see it, we aren't going to make such a change in time to matter, so I left it out of my comment.
I'm also skeptical of the "took our jobs" argument with respect to making art and music.
I think art and music is easier to make in the presence of AI.
I think art and music is easier to make in the presence of AI.
Video game market already shows this future. Marketplaces become flooded with titles, developers spend more time marketing than making art. They get out gunned by the AAA studios and the remainders fight for scraps, with maybe 1-2 indie titles a year becoming breakout hits, and a dozen (out of thousands of titles) maybe getting a decent cult following. Success is controlled by algorithms and you need to minmax your SEO to even be noticed.
It's not a future that benefits small entrepreneurs. And I think the last thing Music needs is even more artists putting out more generated much into the store.
It's not a future that benefits small entrepreneurs. And I think the last thing Music needs is even more artists putting out more generated much into the store.
> They get out gunned by the AAA studios
What does this even mean? Nobody was prevented from making a game; you are just describing the market dynamics of the previous human configuration, which of course are going to change along with the rest of this evolution.
And in any case, it's a great time to be a gamer! So many awesome indy games every day.
> And I think the last thing Music needs is even more artists putting out more generated much into the store.
I mean... I look forward to other people making generated music, and who knows, maybe I'll give it a shot someday. How does it prevent you and I from making the music that speaks to us?
What does this even mean? Nobody was prevented from making a game; you are just describing the market dynamics of the previous human configuration, which of course are going to change along with the rest of this evolution.
And in any case, it's a great time to be a gamer! So many awesome indy games every day.
> And I think the last thing Music needs is even more artists putting out more generated much into the store.
I mean... I look forward to other people making generated music, and who knows, maybe I'll give it a shot someday. How does it prevent you and I from making the music that speaks to us?
>you are just describing the market dynamics of the previous human configuration, which of course are going to change along with the rest of this evolution.
The same SEO optimized spam that riddles Google search applies to games as well. These asset flips and large studios and mobile games will do all the same tricks, except now they can make 20 games a year or more instead of 5.
In short, it will be harder for an indie to stand out, and you as a gamer to find what you want to play. People already complain about steam being ridden with trash in their recommendations, this will accelerate it. You can call it "market dybanics" but it won't be one that benefits you nor me.
>How does it prevent you and I from making the music that speaks to us?
Put lack of talent, assumedly. Talent said spammers don't care about because they are just flooding the store and seeing what works, but talent what we would care about.
Art is also in general not easy to "make for ourselves". We don't know what kind of art per se that we would or wouldn't appreciate without external exposure. By definition our own art can't really challenge our own beliefs. So we want to share those ideas with others. And that's where the trouble begins.
The same SEO optimized spam that riddles Google search applies to games as well. These asset flips and large studios and mobile games will do all the same tricks, except now they can make 20 games a year or more instead of 5.
In short, it will be harder for an indie to stand out, and you as a gamer to find what you want to play. People already complain about steam being ridden with trash in their recommendations, this will accelerate it. You can call it "market dybanics" but it won't be one that benefits you nor me.
>How does it prevent you and I from making the music that speaks to us?
Put lack of talent, assumedly. Talent said spammers don't care about because they are just flooding the store and seeing what works, but talent what we would care about.
Art is also in general not easy to "make for ourselves". We don't know what kind of art per se that we would or wouldn't appreciate without external exposure. By definition our own art can't really challenge our own beliefs. So we want to share those ideas with others. And that's where the trouble begins.
No piece of technology has a systemic guarantee that it works.
But that's what's being sold. And yes there is talks about using it as a lawyer or a prescriber of medicine.
If you want to overextend that much you better be ready to deal with thr regulations. We don't want another Boeing in our hands.
If you want to overextend that much you better be ready to deal with thr regulations. We don't want another Boeing in our hands.
Lawyers and doctors are nowhere near perfect, so that's a completely unreasonable standard. Medical mistakes kill 250K per year in the US (close to 10% of all deaths) so that shows you how effective these regulations are.
If most technology breaks, someone can at least figure out why and fix it in future iterations. No-one is capable of doing that with an AI chatbot.
Is it connected to a missile launcher? [Y] [No, it's safe]
sounds like a soft censorship mechanism to me
Is there a published list of safety tests that are to be conducted?
I laughed when Fox news said Taylor Swift was a "psyop" because it was absurd. Then a few weeks later her deepfakes go all over twitter and the government is cracking down on AI.
Sure its a conspiracy theory, but I do think the government is trying to manipulate public opinion around this space and gain control of it.
Sure its a conspiracy theory, but I do think the government is trying to manipulate public opinion around this space and gain control of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geVNEmnPr5k
Presented as a meme, but it really makes ya think :\
Presented as a meme, but it really makes ya think :\
Deepfakes of her any anyone have existed for awhile. There are paid services. /r/ exists (and has existed long before deepfakes) where people make requests of deepfakes of their high school classmates. Heck, bubble images have existed for forever and are definitely legal as all they do is leave it up to the imagination - quite effectively.
The recent Swift incident only seems noteworthy because many people were introduced to a cyber subculture of which they were previously unaware. But this subculture is 20+ years old.
Anecdotally, when I caught wind of the incident on /g/ a few days ago and saw some of the ridiculous muppet-swift images, I got a chuckle and asked my wife if she had heard of the swift news. She's usually "in the know" with pop culture because she listens to JJR.
To my surprise, not only had she not heard of it, but she was appalled and became very upset about the obviously AI generated image I showed her. She couldn't fathom someone generating such content. Even having the idea to generate such a thing seemed to break her world view. For me it was just another rule 34 chuckle.
The recent Swift incident only seems noteworthy because many people were introduced to a cyber subculture of which they were previously unaware. But this subculture is 20+ years old.
Anecdotally, when I caught wind of the incident on /g/ a few days ago and saw some of the ridiculous muppet-swift images, I got a chuckle and asked my wife if she had heard of the swift news. She's usually "in the know" with pop culture because she listens to JJR.
To my surprise, not only had she not heard of it, but she was appalled and became very upset about the obviously AI generated image I showed her. She couldn't fathom someone generating such content. Even having the idea to generate such a thing seemed to break her world view. For me it was just another rule 34 chuckle.
Can the reports just be reported by AI?
>The government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology will develop a uniform framework for assessing safety, as part of the order Biden signed in October.
They probably need to develop an extremely antisocial, psycopathic, malevolent AI to assess other AIs for safety. Its purpose will be to run through thousands of scenarios, using manipulation, threats, and deception to try to extract dangerous information from the other AI. It can then score the responses based on the information it was able to extract. I don't really see any other way to automate this extremely tedious and error prone task. It's interesting though because we will need to concentrate all of the evil in the world into a single AI in order to run these tests.
They probably need to develop an extremely antisocial, psycopathic, malevolent AI to assess other AIs for safety. Its purpose will be to run through thousands of scenarios, using manipulation, threats, and deception to try to extract dangerous information from the other AI. It can then score the responses based on the information it was able to extract. I don't really see any other way to automate this extremely tedious and error prone task. It's interesting though because we will need to concentrate all of the evil in the world into a single AI in order to run these tests.
So there will be one uncensored, general-purpose, actually-useful AI out there that only the government will have. Hmmmm...
Now do infectious pathogens.
I didn't know the executive branch could just enact new laws unilaterally. They are probably using some easily bent statute to allow for this. Here is hoping SCOTUS overturns Chevron this cycle so we can be free of dictatorial edicts such as this.
More info on executive orders: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...
The word emergency is doing a lot of work in most of these situations.
This reads a lot like leopardsatemyface. It's an executive order that Biden signed three months ago. If you have a problem with executive orders, I'm sure you also spoke up 6 years ago.
I did. I am pro-democracy so I hate authoritarian executive power no matter where it comes from. Check your bias.
1: https://twitter.com/_akhaliq/status/1752033872982806718