| ▲ | cmiles8 2 hours ago |
| What he really means is: Please regulate us, now! If we don’t get regulatory capture ASAP I’m toast. I mean look man I just had to go beg for tens of billions more cash so I can keep the lights on and my IPO is looking more and more screwed every day. Please, I’m begging you. What more do I need to say to convince you? |
|
| ▲ | eddythompson80 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm fascinated by this forum's take on AI regulations. Whenever there is an adverse event, people say of course it should be regulated. The EU AI Act is a good start but we need more. These labs need to be held accountable just like all industries that can impact others. Regulate the chips, regulate the models, regulate the companies. When these companies ask for regulations, people say they are trying to do regulatory capture. They are trying to ban opensource models, and cement their place as the AI arbiters and ban all others. We need competition and open weight models and China is leading the charge. I understand that the 2 position aren't exactly opposed. We probably need regulations, and ideally ones that don't produce regulatory capture. That is extremely hard though. Almost all regulations end up creating a form of regulatory capture. Any regulation compliance has a cost. The more complex and wide reaching the regulations are, the more expensive it's to comply and the more they cement the existing players and make it harder for new ones to enter the market. FAA regulations makes it so we don't have dozens of passenger airplane startups that are trying crazy wacky things. Food services are regulated too, but the compliance is fairly doable by mom and pop stores, yet probably too high for your unlicensed pop-up taco stand. I haven't really seen any meaningful discussion about what AI regulation should be. Only extremes of "No regulations, all is fair" or "no one should have access to running or developing models but OpenAI and Anthropic". |
| |
| ▲ | xscott an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem with regulation is that it won't (can't) solve the problem. You'd have to go totally draconian to stop law breaking people within the US from doing matrix multiplies, and then you'd have to disconnect the US internet from all the countries who won't give a crap about US regulation. So yeah, US regulation is ONLY about capturing US consumers. This isn't food or airplanes. | |
| ▲ | freakynit an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Regulation should require model auditing, which should be fully automated, free(or extremely affordable), and time-bound, irrespective of who the client is. What Altman, Dario and other such folks are trying to do is put a price on getting the model audited, by playing on these: price, timelines, red-tape. Maybe a test-suite, kept continuously updated, similar to those benchmarks we already have for measuring the intelligence of these models. Like arc-agi, or terminal bench, or more. | |
| ▲ | argee an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are you conflating regulation and accountability? I haven't seen anyone (without a vested interest) ask for the former as a response to an adverse event, only the latter. There is a difference. | |
| ▲ | za_creature 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You seem to think that regulation means hitting the brakes. We're way past that point. This is "we need to mobilize an AT squad" territory. Sure, research will continue in secret, just like nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It's just that there's going to be an economy backing it up, with MAD ensuring the attacks are "civil", as Axl once said. | | |
| ▲ | eddythompson80 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > You seem to think that regulation means hitting the brakes. I’m explicitly criticizing that position. | | |
| ▲ | za_creature an hour ago | parent [-] | | Are you though? Seems like you're trying to move the discussion towards the tradeoffs of more vs less regulation, both of which are "moderate" talking points. Your "extremes" are "free for all" and "nobody but big tech" Here's a true extreme: NOBODY |
|
| |
| ▲ | petcat 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is probably a healthy middle-ground for regulation that allows for development and innovation but also some safety. But the reality is that right now it's an arms race and the only countries crying for regulations are the ones that know they've already lost. | |
| ▲ | analognoise an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Some of us want to nationalize these companies. What we’re not going to allow is landed gentry to profit for generations from stealing all the content they could scrape. |
|
|
| ▲ | ComplexSystems 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I agree he wants that, but also don't think it's that far fetched that there exist unpatchable hardware bugs that AI can learn to exploit. |
| |
| ▲ | cmiles8 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes and no. These things have always existed and were typically known but not broadly exploited. A huge part of what nation state hackers do is exploit these things for intelligence use. So I would agree that this is bringing more of this to light, but the idea that unknown exploitable bugs can get weaponized being a new thing is naive. If anything putting all this out in the open makes things more secure, not less, in the long run as it’s harder for hackers to know and exploit them before they’re known as they don’t survive undetected for long. So a bit painful in the short term but we get more secure infra in the long term. Still not a reason to give Sam regulatory capture as an out to saving OpenAI. | | |
| ▲ | ComplexSystems 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The idea that a US company is allowed to publicly talk about and release these bugs is a very new thing. |
| |
| ▲ | za_creature 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At which point, who exactly is going to go to jail for gross negligence? Nobody of course, this is America! | | |
|
