| ▲ | tracerbulletx 5 hours ago |
| Imposing a licensing system on models for limiting domestic use should require an act of congress but I mean obviously we're well past that red line. |
|
| ▲ | coffeemug 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives. Even firearms, despite a constitutional amendment! Why not models? (Note I am not arguing it's a good idea; I'm making a narrow argument that there is precedent.) EDIT: I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power. |
| |
| ▲ | tzs 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives. Every one of those is by a regulatory agency that was explicitly empowered by Congress to do such regulation. | | |
| ▲ | to11mtm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | until it isn't, i.e. certain rulings over the last couple years... | | | |
| ▲ | calvinmorrison an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | right, and one minute to the next a gun you bought could be a crime to own and land you in jail LOL. congress has abdicated its role entirely. | | |
| ▲ | greenavocado an hour ago | parent [-] | | Dajcie mi człowieka, a paragraf się znajdzie
translates to: Give me the man and I will give you the case against him
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sigmar 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The ATF was created by an act of congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 | |
| ▲ | tick_tock_tick an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power. Should ever new "weapon" invented require a new act of Congress? We've considered software subject this act since the 90s. If everyone making AI is screaming up and down that we are in an AI arms race creating dangerous entities that will determine the fate of the world is the government just supposed to ignore them? | |
| ▲ | standardUser 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | All of the agencies responsible for those regulations were created by and get their funding from Congress. Currently, they're asleep at the wheel. Or a better idiom might be "cowering in the corner". | | |
| ▲ | GolfPopper 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would say, "sitting smugly astride the monster's back, confident that they will never be fed to it". |
| |
| ▲ | verelo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | None of those things are knowledge. I think theres something specific around limiting access to knowledge and capabilities that makes this feel insidious. | | | |
| ▲ | UncleEntity 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fairly certain all those have "acts of congress" attached to them. I mean, it used to take a constitutional amendment to make something illegal but now we have tons of agencies responsible for regulating all the things. Plus, they're relying on the "math is a weapon" law to ban "export" of the models. | | |
| ▲ | delichon 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Congress passed the Arms Export Control Act (22 USC 2778) in the Ford administration and it has been applied to software since at least the Clinton administration. | | |
| ▲ | conartist6 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | isn't this materially different in that it creates a kind of class system within the US? | | |
| ▲ | varenc an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | how so? Is it a class system that only Raytheon employees can work on cruise missiles, not the average citizen? | | |
| ▲ | sgc 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Cruise missiles are not general purpose tools, it's obviously not even remotely similar. Virtually everybody reading this could use Mythos immediately to do real work, collectively in virtually every part of the economy. It's pretty problematic to not make it more widely available at least to US businesses, and there is not even a vetting process to get approved quickly and easily. If this is the new norm, the intended or unintended consequences of this type of gatekeeping will be an unprecedented consolidation of power amongst the largest corporations. Even more than we have seen over the last 20 years. |
| |
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | the continued exploits of the same kind of class system the US has always had |
|
| |
| ▲ | skywhopper 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It has never taken a constitutional amendment to make something illegal. | | |
| |
| ▲ | jiggawatts 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Malboro cigarettes may once again be sold, but Newport remains banned for everyone except large purchasers that have paid the appropriate bri... fees." |
|
|
| ▲ | motbus3 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder what kind of emergency will happen when real elections get around |
| |
|
| ▲ | az226 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And even if a court places an injunction on the ban, it's possible Anthropic will still choose to keep it unavailable. |
|
| ▲ | actionfromafar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Overturning the Chevron doctrine is good because it stops lawful people from doing things we don't like. We aren't bound by laws, so we can do whatever we want. -- GOP probably |
| |
| ▲ | twoodfin 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Chevron doctrine gave more power to the executive agencies of the current administration, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. | | |
| ▲ | preg_match 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That repealing the chevron doctrine was a calculated play in the unitary executive theory. We all know congress is basically useless these days. But we also know that regulation isn’t, like, optional. It’s going to happen no matter what. So what’s left? Where does that decision making go? Turns out the executive, so that’s what we’ve been seeing and it’s largely uncontested. This should have been obvious to most people going into this, particularly if they understood Trumps platform or Project 2025. | | |
| ▲ | twoodfin an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Repeal of the Chevron doctrine took the power of deference away from executive agencies and replaced it with first-principles judicial interpretation of statutes. Chevron and the unitary executive theory have essentially nothing to do with each other. I’m still not sure what point is attempting to be made here. | | |
| ▲ | preg_match 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | In effect, it did not. All it said is that the powers enumerated to those executive agencies must be more explicitly laid out by congress. But, that’s just not something that’s going to happen. So, the gap has been filled largely by executive orders. |
| |
| ▲ | calvinmorrison an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | perhaps congress could do something other than vacation | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tiahura 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They did. Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. § 4511 );Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4812 are just two of them. |
| |
|
| ▲ | tchalla 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Do you remember the export controls on Covid vaccine material during the height of coronavirus? I do |
