Shouldn't we be evaluating ideas on the merits and not categorically rejecting (or endorsing) them based on who said them?
The problem is when only the entrenched industry players & legislators have a voice, there are many ideas & perspectives that are simply not heard or considered. Industrial groups have a long history of using regulations to entrench their positions & to stifle competition...creating a "barrier to entry" as they say. Going beyond that, industrial groups have shaped public perception & the regulatory apparatus to effectively create a company store, where the only solutions to some problem effectively (or sometimes legally) must go through a small set of large companies.
This concern is especially prescient now, as these technologies are unprecedentedly disruptive to many industries & private life. Using worst case scenario fear mongering as a justification to regulate the extreme majority of usage that will not come close to these fears, is disingenuous & almost always an overreach of governance.
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.
Do you mean like Serial Experiments Lain?
of course, but just because those ideas are unheard, doesn't mean they are going to be any better.
An idea should stand on its own merits, and be evaluated objectively. It doesn't matter who was doing the proposing.
Also the problem isn't that bad ideas might get implemented, but that the legislature isn't willing or able to make updates to laws that encoded a bad idea. Perhaps it isnt known that it is a bad idea until after the fact, and the methods of democracy we have today isn't easily able to force updates to bad laws encoding bad ideas.
And hat tip to this comment:
Have you watched ANIME ever? Yeah... its here now.
Ideas that drive governing decisions should be globally good - meaning there should be more than just @sama espousing them.
It probably does mean it's better at least for the person with the perspective. Too bad only a very few get a seat at the table to advocate for their own interests. It would be better if everyone has agency to advocate for their interests.
> Also the problem isn't that bad ideas might get implemented, but that the legislature isn't willing or able to make updates to laws that encoded a bad idea
First, this is a hyped up crisis where some people are claiming it will end humanity. There have been many doomsday predictions & people scared by these predictions are effectively scammed by those fomenting existential fear. It's interesting that the representatives of large pools of capital are suddenly existentially afraid when there is open source competition.
Second, once something is in the domain of government it will only get more bloated & controlled by monied lobbyists. The legislatures controlled by lobbyists will never make it better, only worse. There have been so many temporary programs that continue to exist & expand. Many bloated omnibus bills too long to read passed under some sort of "emergency". The government's tendency is to grow & to serve the interests of the corporations that pay the politicians. Fear is an effective tool to convince people to accept things against their interests.
You'll be stuck in the muck while they're laughing their ass off all the way to the bank.
We have lawyers.
A) "anything he suggests should be categorically rejected because he’s just not in a position to be trusted."
B) "If what he suggests are good ideas then hopefully we can arrive at them in some other way with a clean chain of custody."
These sentences directly follow each other and directly contradict each other. Logically you can't categorically (the categorical is important here. Categorical means something like "treat as a universal law") reject a conclusion because it is espoused by someone you dislike, while at the same time saying you will accept that conclusion if arrived at by some other route.
"I will reject P if X proposes P, but will accept P if Y proposes P." is just poor reasoning.
My point was that an idea shold not need attribution for you to know whether it's good or bad, for your own purposes. I can't imagine looking at a proposal and deciding whether to support or oppose based on the author rather than content.
If Altman is that smart and manipulative, all he has to do is advocate the opposite of what he wants and you'll be insisting that we must give him exactly what he wants, on principle. That's funny with kids but no way to run public policy.
But I suppose it comes down to priorities. If good policy is less important than contradicting P, I suppose that approach makes sense.
Look at all anime cyber cities...
Its not as high tech as you may imagine, but the surveillance is there
EDIt your "company" is watching every
===
Policy makers will not understanding what they are doing.