zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
We need to MAKE SURE that AI as a technology ISN'T controlled by a small number of powerful corporations with connections to governments.

To expound, this just seems like a power grab to me, to "lock in" the lead and keep AI controlled by a small number of corporations that can afford to license and operate the technologies. Obviously, this will create a critical nexus of control for a small number of well connected and well heeled investors and is to be avoided at all costs.

It's also deeply troubling that regulatory capture is such an issue these days as well, so putting a government entity in front of the use and existence of this technology is a double whammy — it's not simply about innovation.

The current generation of AIs are "scary" to the uninitiated because they are uncanny valley material, but beyond impersonation they don't show the novel intelligence of a GPI... yet. It seems like OpenAI/Microsoft is doing a LOT of theater to try to build a regulatory lock in on their short term technology advantage. It's a smart strategy, and I think Congress will fall for it.

But goodness gracious we need to be going in the EXACT OPPOSITE direction — open source "core inspectable" AIs that millions of people can examine and tear apart, including and ESPECIALLY the training data and processes that create them.

And if you think this isn't an issue, I wrote this post an hour or two before I managed to take it live because Comcast went out at my house, and we have no viable alternative competitors in my area. We're about to do the same thing with AI, but instead of Internet access it's future digital brains that can control all aspects of a society.

>>happyt+ZB1
This is the definition of regulatory capture. Altman should be invited to speak so that we understand the ideas in his head but anything he suggests should be categorically rejected because he’s just not in a position to be trusted. If what he suggests are good ideas then hopefully we can arrive at them in some other way with a clean chain of custody.

Although I assume if he’s speaking on AI they actually intend on considering his thoughts more seriously than I suggest.

>>noneth+DG1
I'm not following this "good ideas must come from an ideologically pure source" thing.

Shouldn't we be evaluating ideas on the merits and not categorically rejecting (or endorsing) them based on who said them?

>>brooks+uU1
Aside from who is saying them, the premise holds water.

AI is beyond-borders, and thus unenforceable in practicality.

The top-minds-of-AI are a group that cannot be regulated.

-

AI isnt about the industries it shall disrupt ; AI is the policy-makers it will expose.

THAT is what they are afraid of.

--

I have been able to do financial lenses into organizations that even with rudimentary BI would have taken me months/weeks - but I have been able to find insights which took me minutes.

AI regulation right now, in this infancy, is about damage control.

---

Its the same as the legal weed market. You think BAIN Capital just all of a sudden decided to jump into the market without setting up their spigot?

Do you think that haliburton under cheney was able to setup their supply chains without cheney as head of KBR/Hali/CIA/etc...

Yeah, this is the same play ; AI is going to be squashed until they can use it to profit over you.

Have you watched ANIME ever? Yeah... its here now.

>>samsta+9Y1
This is a very interesting post. I don't understand this part: <<AI is the policy-makers it will expose>> Can you help to explain a different way?

And hat tip to this comment:

    Have you watched ANIME ever? Yeah... its here now.

The more I watch the original Ghost in the Shell, the more I think it has incredible foresight.

>>throwa+7x2
don't understand this part: <<AI is the policy-makers it will expose>> Can you help to explain a different way?*

===

Policy makers will not understanding what they are doing.