How easy to cast anything that might disrupt "capitalism-as-usual" as a left wing conspiracy theory. Of course that 'casting' IS the new conspiracy theory for the moronic.
"populism, his supposed strand of politics." Nice to see you used the word "supposed"! I would like you to go bit further and tell us more about what you find his strand of politics to be.
AI should be regulated with something similar to the FAA or the DOT - something that investigates incidents and sets standards.
In the meantime, we still have existing criminal and civil laws for some of this stuff. It's important to not get lost in the semantics of what's taking place. Did AI agents "escape" and "attack" another company? Or did one company mishandle its product and cause harm to another company?
There's probably already a law that says "don't break into a company's computer system and steal things". But if you anthropomorphize the computer code doing the stealing it distracts from the idea that the computer code was negligently managed by humans who work at a trillion dollar company.
If you build a bomb or a rocket in your company's building and during a test it blows up a house nearby we don't say the bomb or rocket escaped and attacked the house. The product either did what the humans instructed it to do (really bad!) or the humans didn't properly instruct it NOT to blow up the house (also really bad!).
The moderate AI pundits who try to give a balanced view cast doubt on the sincerity or the credentials of the employees making the claims of AI danger. One reviewed all the doomsday comments of the last 5 years and pointed out the suspicious timing of the posts just as the WSJ was publishing their exclusive AI story. Another pointed out that Anthropic has used their danger warnings as a recruitment tool for technical employees for years now. I think we all need to calm down about the "AI will kill us all" fear, but now that it has become a political football, I doubt it will happen.
I don’t think anyone would have suggested slowing down the development of the atomic bomb during WW II. As long as every political entity views everything as a zero sum game and value systems within those entities are intractably divergent, no one can afford to come in second.
Seems like congress is in for a steep learning curve. My concern is this: could AI hack the midterm elections? What a mess! And China is pushing on full steam ahead. What do we do about that?
Actually, what I have read is that China is being much more cautious than the US Tech Bros. The last thing that China wants is rogue AI agents they can't control.
Americans in general and politicians in both the House and Senate are far behind the curve on getting up to speed on AI. Public hearings would go a long way to at least fleshing out the contours of what's at stake and how we should think about imposing legal and supervisory restraints on it. At this point, it doesn't seem to be a partisan issue, which also underscores how little actual thought is going into it. It's a phenomenon that is preparing for us a lot faster than we are preparing for it, and a democratic public and its elected representatives need to catch up fast.
How easy to cast anything that might disrupt "capitalism-as-usual" as a left wing conspiracy theory. Of course that 'casting' IS the new conspiracy theory for the moronic.
"populism, his supposed strand of politics." Nice to see you used the word "supposed"! I would like you to go bit further and tell us more about what you find his strand of politics to be.
The aged Congress is unable to act quickly, which is a doomsday situation for not only the US, but the planet.
Congress needs to be in session much longer.
AI should be regulated with something similar to the FAA or the DOT - something that investigates incidents and sets standards.
In the meantime, we still have existing criminal and civil laws for some of this stuff. It's important to not get lost in the semantics of what's taking place. Did AI agents "escape" and "attack" another company? Or did one company mishandle its product and cause harm to another company?
There's probably already a law that says "don't break into a company's computer system and steal things". But if you anthropomorphize the computer code doing the stealing it distracts from the idea that the computer code was negligently managed by humans who work at a trillion dollar company.
If you build a bomb or a rocket in your company's building and during a test it blows up a house nearby we don't say the bomb or rocket escaped and attacked the house. The product either did what the humans instructed it to do (really bad!) or the humans didn't properly instruct it NOT to blow up the house (also really bad!).
The moderate AI pundits who try to give a balanced view cast doubt on the sincerity or the credentials of the employees making the claims of AI danger. One reviewed all the doomsday comments of the last 5 years and pointed out the suspicious timing of the posts just as the WSJ was publishing their exclusive AI story. Another pointed out that Anthropic has used their danger warnings as a recruitment tool for technical employees for years now. I think we all need to calm down about the "AI will kill us all" fear, but now that it has become a political football, I doubt it will happen.
I don’t think anyone would have suggested slowing down the development of the atomic bomb during WW II. As long as every political entity views everything as a zero sum game and value systems within those entities are intractably divergent, no one can afford to come in second.
Seems like congress is in for a steep learning curve. My concern is this: could AI hack the midterm elections? What a mess! And China is pushing on full steam ahead. What do we do about that?
Actually, what I have read is that China is being much more cautious than the US Tech Bros. The last thing that China wants is rogue AI agents they can't control.
Americans in general and politicians in both the House and Senate are far behind the curve on getting up to speed on AI. Public hearings would go a long way to at least fleshing out the contours of what's at stake and how we should think about imposing legal and supervisory restraints on it. At this point, it doesn't seem to be a partisan issue, which also underscores how little actual thought is going into it. It's a phenomenon that is preparing for us a lot faster than we are preparing for it, and a democratic public and its elected representatives need to catch up fast.