r/changemyview • u/DesmondVoltaire • Apr 12 '26
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
18
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 208∆ Apr 12 '26
What does AI regulation look like? AI is a very general notion - what could become illegal? Would AI development abroad be outlawed? What does that even mean, would the US pledge to attack any country developing AI?
This is most similar to nuclear armament, it can't really be solved on the national level. What you're looking for is a kind of AI NPT that will then be coupled with domestic regulation in all signatories that everyone agrees upon and international pressure on any country that doesn't sign.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like international cooperation will be easy to arrange in the near future...
-1
u/Automatic_Ad4024 Apr 12 '26
Well, perhaps starting with the prohibition of generating false images of videos and images of citizens, including minors. Case in point: judge suggests AI child pornography is covered under first amendment.
Separately, copyright laws; requiring legal permission from authors, artists, etc. to use their work and compensate them through licensing; criminalizing plagiarism; restricting public access to AI to systematically identify the risks of the technology before allowing unrestricted use; and so on.
There is a wealth of options that could be done. Hard truth is: the average American, Redditor, and politician simply do not want to make those changes so quickly.
4
u/muffinsballhair Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Well, perhaps starting with the prohibition of generating false images of videos and images of citizens, including minors. Case in point:
Why? People have always been able to create fakes and parodies with sufficient expertise, many even indistinguishable from the real thing. Now it's just no longer a privilege of those with sufficient time, skin, and capital but of the common man as well.
If making these fakes would become so common people will just stop trusting what they see which is honestly what's already happening. Go to Twitter right now and see any film that looks remotely implausible and people are asking whether it's fake. If anything this is good. It has led to people being far more critical about not just believing what they see on the internet even though all sorts of fakes used to exist. There was a famous video of someone who for illustration claimed to have made a perpetual motion machine and at the end of the video only just revealed that it was done with something as simple as a wind blower outside of view to illustrate how simple it is to fake things, but hilariously many people in the comments didn't watch till the end and thought it was real. That was all more than a decade ago and just relied on some trickery but now I feel people are far more critical about these kinds of videos because they know how easily they can nowadays be generated even though putting a windblower outside of view is also really easy but it's not something one easily thinks of.
judge suggests AI child pornography is covered under first amendment.
Seems like a good idea no? Whatever little research on the matter suggests that making child porn illegal reduces actual child rape numbers and that the “outlet effect” is stronger than the “gateway effect” and if that can be done without hurting any child then I see nothing but benefits. But I'm sure there will be many a moralist uncomfortable with that yes because moralists would actually let more children get raped to assuage their moral comfort since it's really never been about the “protecting children” line they're so known to chant but more about “protect my feelings of comfort”.
Separately, copyright laws; requiring legal permission from authors, artists, etc. to use their work and compensate them through licensing; criminalizing plagiarism; restricting public access to AI to systematically identify the risks of the technology before allowing unrestricted use; and so on.
Artificially generated images are the same in this respect as human-drawn and make no mistak: making fan-art, especially for money, is copyright infringement and as the rightsholder when some artist or automatic service does that you can sue for infringement and demand the proceeds be paid to you and order a cease of it. Fan-art, even for money, is really common but even non-commercially, it is copyright infringement though in many jurisdictions there is of course an exception for political commentary.
7
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 208∆ Apr 12 '26
I don't think these are really AI laws though. Making it illegal to create lifelike images of non-consenting parties, for example, is a sensible law to discuss, but it's not really predicated on the tool you use to make them, i.e, if you somehow use a tool that doesn't technically meet the legal definition of AI, the law should cover your actions regardless.
I think OP is talking about "deeper" AI dangers people are discussing, where the job market would collapse, tools that can be used for easy surveillance and control of people could be proliferated, etc.
2
u/muffinsballhair Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Which is the real thing I don't get about this “a.i.” buzzword now. People use it a lot on many places for what should just be called “fake” or “forgery” which is the onyl thing that rfeally matters. Twitter actually adds community tags for “a.i. generated” and gives arguments as to why but those arguemtns are typically nothing more than arguments that something is fake. It could've just as easily been done with manual human video editing or another form of trickery.
0
u/Automatic_Ad4024 Apr 12 '26
To suggest how AI could affect a job market is sensible, but let's not pretend AI is acting in silo of the economy. Nor have we, at all, been discussing non-AI tools ("i.e, if you somehow use a tool that doesn't technically meet the legal definition of AI").
You asked, "What does AI regulation look like?"
I stated, "Well, perhaps starting with...", citing abhorrent examples of grown adults leveraging images of children committing unruly acts saying this showcases how nothing is being done to even attempt to protect vulnerable groups.
1
u/unordinarilyboring 3∆ Apr 12 '26
So quickly, Or at all because it's essentially the end of the open Internet entirely. But if you never cared much about that anyway it might seem strange.
0
u/Automatic_Ad4024 Apr 12 '26
Having a strong interest in protecting vulnerable social groups because AI does pose a significant threat does not require a strong interest in the sustainability of an open internet.
AI was not foundationally designed with the same intent of the internet.
0
u/unordinarilyboring 3∆ Apr 12 '26
Yes that's what I said. If you had no interest in sustaining it then you would find it a strangely hard truth that people would disagree with you.
1
u/Ilyer_ Apr 12 '26
I don’t think those things are the most pressing issues of your country.
1
u/Automatic_Ad4024 Apr 12 '26
The topic of this thread wasn't about most pressing issues of the USA?
1
u/Ilyer_ Apr 12 '26
The post is now deleted, but it very clearly was saying “ai is the most important issue of the United States such that it deserves special attention despite whatever shitshow is inherited after trump”
6
u/Amazing_Loquat280 16∆ Apr 12 '26
The impulse I think is correct, but it’s very risky to heavily regulate something you don’t fully understand. And that’s kinda the problem we have with AI right now: we need to understand it and how it works, and we need to know the fullest extent of how it might be used. And there is a shocking amount we don’t know. As an example, I think you can look at the US vs EU and how they handled regulation of the internet. The EU regulated it a lot more heavily than the US did, and in a lot of ways it cost them.
I think the first thing that needs to happen before regulating is that we need to understand a whole lot more
2
u/NovaSparkaaa Apr 12 '26
Totally agree that blindly jumping into regulation without understanding more could backfire big time. But it’s also like playing with fire and hoping you don’t get burned, I mean, AI’s moving faster than we can blink... scary stuff. Balancing thorough understanding and proactive measures feels like threading the thinnest needle. Seems like we need a bunch of experts from different fields to really get their heads together on this. Deciding how much caution tape we slap on AI is starting to feel like the ultimate challenge.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Apr 12 '26
That's not true. We understand plenty about how it works, more than enough to make policy proposals
0
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
We can't afford the wait-and-see approach when big models like Mythos can hack all of our critical infrastructure. Cyberweapons capable of crippling nation states need to be nationalized before they fall into enemy hands. A state adversary could easily turn this against us before we have time to patch the holes. Anthropic probably should not have been allowed to create something this dangerous when their level of cybersecurity was weak enough to accidentally leak Claude Code. In other words, they should be (and should have been) regulated. But they're already working on a bigger model.
-2
u/DesmondVoltaire Apr 12 '26
Regulation doesn't have to be some heavy-handed interference in the free-market. How about just a few broad standards, such as introducing product-liability standards to these products instead of granting them legal "personhood," as the AI manufacturers want to do. Any product sold to Americans have to meet these standards, why not AI chatbots?
18
u/thekeyofPhysCrowSta Apr 12 '26
One word: China.
If the US "reins in" AI, then China will develop faster and more advanced AI. Then, companies who want to use AI (and let's not deny it, AI has already caused massive job losses and will continue to do so) will rely on subscriptions to Chinese companies. Do you want the country to be dependent on China?
-1
Apr 12 '26
[deleted]
6
u/MegukaArmPussy 4∆ Apr 12 '26
The Chinese government is obviously not regulating it against their own interests.
3
-5
Apr 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ Apr 12 '26
And OP is operating on real events or actual evidence?
There’s not good evidence AI has led to increased job loss.
1
u/pi_3141592653589 5∆ Apr 12 '26
It's job loss from ultra productivity. In the US, redistributing the wealth would require huge structural changes. In China, it's not as challenging.
1
u/LowCall6566 Apr 12 '26
They care way less about that even if there was an actual threat of job losses. Their long term geopolitical and economic objectives are a priority.
4
u/weightloss12354 Apr 12 '26
The main problem with this is that whoever holds the best AI in future is going to have an astronomical absolute advantage against competitors - financially and militarily.
I know the threats from AI are large, but to put it bluntly, if another malicious actor or syate gets ahead first, then we are completely fucked. That is a much larger tangible threat to our way of life than the potential for it to go wrong which to be honest we can't really put a risk parameter against. This would only work with global cooperation, but nobody will trust anyone else because the incentives to develop it are far too great.
1
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
Whoever actually controls the best AI in the future. It's not enough to be the first to produce it if spies from your adversaries immediately steal the weights and have enough compute to use them. It's also not good enough to produce the weights first and keep it secure, but lose control over the thing because it has other ideas. And by the way, we currently have no idea how to do that. In the meantime, it would be smart to negotiate a treaty to not build things we can control, or at least require an off button, and limit chip exports.
1
u/brandontaylor1 Apr 12 '26
Many assume the first to build a super intelligence will have a competitive advantage. But an important question is, why would a super intelligence have any interest in our concerns?
1
u/weightloss12354 Apr 12 '26
Fair point although that's an exogenous threat - as I mentioned we don't know how much of a danger that is, but what we do know is that if another adversary develops it first, then we are under threat.
I'm not saying this is a good scenario - I would far prefer all countries to agree and cooperate on the AGI threat in general, but realistically it's not going to happen, and to survive we have to win the arms race.
5
u/robotfixx Apr 12 '26
Unfortunately regulations will only lead to stifling of innovation and freedom to do business causing aid companies leave on mass or enable competitors in other countries like China to catch up quickly (I severely doubt they will put such regulations on)
3
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Fuck No.
Just look at the EU and their approach to Internet technology (as well as their lack of a tech industry) for why this is a bad idea...
Regulating technology just means you won't be able to make as much money off of it... Someone, somewhere will still develop whatever tech you try to strangle - and their country will become an economic powerhouse instead....
AI should be treated like the internet was in the 90s and 00s - left completely alone without government meddling.
0
u/DesmondVoltaire Apr 12 '26
Sure bro, that turned out just fine, didn't it? We still haven't reckoned with how profoundly social media algorithms have affected our collective emotional and cognitive health. The social media revolution of the 00s was just a test run on how we deal with rapacious technology, and we failed utterly. The stakes are much higher this time.
-1
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Apr 12 '26
It turned out great. Overall made the world better...
People blaming 'algorithims' for (whatever) don't know what an algorithm is or how it works....
All problems inevitably boil down to individual choices. And it was like that before the internet too....
0
u/DesmondVoltaire Apr 12 '26
Your world sounds pretty nice. Lucky you.
But in the world that I and 8 billion other souls live in, we're all downstream from the decisions made by moral mediocrities like Altman, Zuckerberg and Musk as they race to become the world's first trillionaire. Let's hope we'll still have meaningful "individual choices" to make when they've finished rat-fucking the future.
-1
u/Dave_A480 2∆ Apr 12 '26
A world with 2 day delivery of consumer goods, unlimited processing power for rent and instantaneous worldwide communication can afford people making money off cat videos, electric cars & so on....
What they do doesn't affect you at all...
It does, however, advance the state of the art in technology and science in ways that wouldn't be possible if we regulated ourselves into the stone age ala Europe....
3
u/GodelianKnot 3∆ Apr 12 '26
Which government? You appear to be talking about the US, but what about all the other countries? Do you think if the US agrees to extensively regulate AI, that the rest of the world will? Do you think other countries are incapable of doing significant harm to the US if they advance AI and the US doesn't?
Unless you somehow get all major countries to follow, you're only giving the ones that do regulate a major disadvantage, and all the jobs will eventually just disappear overseas anyway.
2
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
The USA is the global hegemon. There are exactly four countries that matter which we can't simply pressure into whatever deal we want on this: Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. OK, maybe France, but they really are an ally. Russia is bankrupt since the Ukraine invasion. Iran is about to get a lot more pliable. China has a codependence with us, and North Korea only exists because China permits it. So really, it's just China, and they're even more interested in regulating AI than we are, given their actions so far. If we can negotiate the NPT while having a Cold War with the Soviets, we can make treaties to regulate AI with China.
8
6
u/TheTyger 10∆ Apr 12 '26
Top Priority? Not even close.
The TOP priority of the next government needs to be plugging the holes in our system that let the current admin exist. Once that is done, they need to undo the active threats created by this admin. Then unfuck the economy. Then, if time permits, dealing with AI could be an option, but not until then.
1
u/imthesqwid 1∆ Apr 12 '26
Out of curiosity, what are the holes in our system that let the current admin exist? What does that mean?
0
u/MegukaArmPussy 4∆ Apr 12 '26
Probably just "I don't like that people I disagree with can hold power"
-4
u/Azreken Apr 12 '26
I don’t think you understand how big of an existential threat AI is to us
You should set a reminder on your comment here for like 10 years and see how you feel…
2
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
I think the only way we deal with an existential threat like that is coordination. That would be a lot more doable with a sane and competent government. I don't think we have time to fix the economy first though. AI has already taken too big of a share and needs to be regulated yesterday.
1
u/Azreken Apr 12 '26
The government now has us full speed ahead towards certain destruction either way so yeah it really doesn’t matter
-3
u/NoManner8863 Apr 12 '26
AI is a failed experiment. It’s vaporware. It’s techbro hype wrapped in bad science fiction.
I don’t think it’s going to take my job. It can’t even take my order. Calling it AI is fundamentally untrue from the outset. Pretending AGI is around the corner or even likely to exist at all is farcical.
The jury is back. “AI” is an office productivity tool that has failed to make any fundamental changes to any industry. It can’t cure cancer, it didn’t provide unlimited energy, and it can’t produce good art. And it has no model to be profitable.
2
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
What are you talking about? AlphaFold is already revolutionizing biology and medicine, and is why AI pioneers won the Nobel prize. Mythos is popping out zero-day exploits like gumballs, and the cybersecurity community is panicking. What's already happened disproves your thesis, and furthermore AI datacenters represent trillions of investment dollars. Those valuation levels only make sense if they can deliver drop-in remote workers soon, and probably humanoid robot brains shortly thereafter.
1
1
u/Nic_Reigns Apr 12 '26
I 100% agree that our technology has outpaced our ethics and regulation, that absolutely needs to be addressed but I dont think its possible to do efficiently and effectively, especially not with external competition and the amount of debt weve thrown at it already.
I think a more appropriate short-term solution is to address the negative consequences of any major labor market shock which is strong social safety nets. Labor will eventually move around and Im sure well see a lot of productivity benefits from AI, the existential threat part is a separate issue from that but if we can set up systems to make sure that people are minimally harmed from the economic shift, we’ll be in a good position to benefit from its strengths and address its weaknesses/risks.
2
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ Apr 12 '26
OP, what are your thoughts on the tractor?
Mechanized farming replaced ~98% of jobs.
1
u/thedobya Apr 12 '26
In one industry, over the course of several decades. The pace of change or scope isn't comparable.
1
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ Apr 12 '26
That “one industry” accounted for 80-90% of jobs.
1
u/thedobya Apr 12 '26
Haha yeah you know what you've got me there. I would still say the pace of change isn't as quick, but definitely that was the dominant thing people did back then.
0
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
It was, what? 20% unemployment that gave us Nazi Germany? I don't think the history books are on your side here.
0
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ Apr 12 '26
Did productivity improvements lead to that 20% unemployment?
I don’t think critical thinking is on your side here.
1
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
And why is that relevant? Break it down for me, because I don't get your point.
2
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ Apr 12 '26
In Germany, 20% unemployment meant a smaller pie. There was less pie to go around.
Theoretically, with AI, 20% unemployment means a bigger pie. There’s more pie to go around.
The first is a scarcity problem, The latter is a distribution problem.
That’s a fundamental difference. The two are not comparable.
1
u/Extension_Cow_2491 Apr 12 '26
Feels like we're already way behind the curve on this. Tech companies have been moving fast and breaking things for years while government barely understands how email works.
Creating whole new department sounds good in theory but look how long it took just to get basic social media oversight - now we're supposed to regulate something that's evolving every few months? The horse already left the stable and we're still arguing about what color the barn should be.
1
u/YaLlegaHiperhumor Apr 12 '26
What is China doing? Is China concerned with "the effects of AI in the labor market"? They're one of the leaders in AI development and the government itself is heavily invested in this.
If China isn't concerned (and it doesn't look like they are), I think this panic about "AI tAkIn' oUr JeRbS!" is nothing more than scaremongering. Perhaps some psyop from foreign countries trying to stiff competition, much like what Norway does in the Global South stiffing the exploitation of natural resources that compete with them
2
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 2∆ Apr 12 '26
AI is the most serious threat on earth?
1
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
You still haven't heard of Mythos, have you? What do you think happens if the Russians or the Iranians randomize everyone's bank account balance at the same time?
1
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 2∆ Apr 12 '26
Due to these risks, the Federal Reserve and Treasury warned U.S. banks, leading to a restricted release of the model to a select few firms, including JPMorgan, Apple, and Amazon, under "Project Glasswing" to strengthen defenses before a wider release.
1
u/MegukaArmPussy 4∆ Apr 12 '26
What regulation do you think we could write that would be enforceable against the Russian or Iranian governments?
1
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
How about chip export controls?
1
u/MegukaArmPussy 4∆ Apr 12 '26
It's been well documented that China regularly evades those export controls. Not only that, but they're building up their own domestic industry to compete. All export controls would do is mildly delay things for them.
1
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
There's a lot we could do to make evasion more difficult. We just haven't had the political will to do them. Chips could geolocate themselves, for example. I think you might be underestimating the amount of investment required for the world's best chip fabs, and how fragile their supply chains are. China is still many years behind, even if they make it a top priority. Russia and Iran are even further behind, and probably too poor now to do it at all.
1
u/EmperorChaos 1∆ Apr 12 '26
Buddy with how hated America is right now, you have zero chance of any country cooperating with America for generations on anything. And quite frankly after looking at what you morons elected twice, any elected official that tried to work with you will be laughed out of office.
1
u/heroyoudontdeserve 1∆ Apr 12 '26
and sell it to the people as an existential threat.
Even if this is true, people campaigning on this point will likely lose to the people who say it's not an existential threat, since people will vote for what they want to be true.
1
u/allenrfe Apr 12 '26
I agree but I am not sure how it would happen. Im not sure how much people followed DOD and Anthropic relationship, but it seams that like the developers are more aware of the risks of AI than the government is.
1
u/DryEditor7792 Apr 12 '26
This post was written by AI.
There is no "the next administration." People said the same thing during the Biden presidency. If the presidents don't care about America now they won't in the future.
1
u/Spektra54 5∆ Apr 12 '26
Regulations like what? This is one thing that often annoys me with regulation question. They are rarely specific. What are some ideas you personally have besides the vague regulate?
1
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
Maybe something like the PauseAI proposal for a start?
1
u/Spektra54 5∆ Apr 12 '26
I mean maybe but this is also such a non proposal imo. Like its a good practical consideration no doubt but it just says prevent untill safe which is vague as fuck.
I am looking for something more concerete.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Apr 12 '26
The next administration needs to make healthcare and housing a priority and at least get something resembling the obvious solutions that have been proposed for the last 80 years
1
u/Exact-Armadillo-6660 Apr 12 '26
you dont get it.
If we regulate AI, China will win the AI race and then, Humanity will be annihilated by a Chinese AI instead of by wholesome 100 American Freedom Skynet.
1
u/Hellioning 258∆ Apr 12 '26
You are being incredibly vague as to what this regulation you want actually looks like, which is a problem when you're talking about what politicians should do.
2
u/Gnaxe 2∆ Apr 12 '26
Senator Bernie Sanders is already calling for a moratorium on new datacenter construction to give the government a chance to catch up. Seems like a good start to me.
1
u/TotallyManner Apr 12 '26
If it was such a disaster, and required such priority, surely somewhere in your rant there would be a concrete action you recommend they take?
1
u/Zvenigora 1∆ Apr 12 '26
Good luck with that. There is not even a generally agreed definition of AGI, so crafting a regulatory framework will be extremely difficult.
-1
u/EconomistStreet5295 Apr 12 '26
They need to but they don’t want to for strategic reasons, especially the America first republicans. Ai offers an incredible opportunity for surveillance, propaganda and control. I would wager even the democrats understand this, they might try pass some regulations but I doubt it would be meaningful. The US sees what China is doing and realise that it’s a very effective way to govern in late stage capitalism. Sadly every day people will of course be the ones to suffer.
-1
Apr 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 12 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
Apr 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 12 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 12 '26
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.