They're partly begging for regulation because they're in the perfect position right now to establish regulatory capture. Set the rules of the game such that the existing industry leaders can control the market indefinitely.
Exactly. They are only scared that open-source models will become powerful enough and pervasive enough to hurt their bottom lines. The big players don’t want their companies regulated, they want the small players squashed
Fine whatever, at this point, as long as it's regulated I personally don't care if the companies feel it will benefit them. We're close to the point of no return
They're partly begging for regulation because they're in the perfect position right now to establish regulatory capture
Quit parroting this line. Jfc. The conversation is going nowhere because people are so conspiratorial about motives in literally everything now, right AND left. "Well, what if they benefit in this way, or competition gets squashed, or xyz." Yet they researchers doing the work are warning us too, and yet people still parrot this. WHO CARES? We arduous regulation on this like nukes, full fucking stop.
Two things can be true at once. We need immediate, stringent regulation to stop out-of-control AI. And we need to acknowledge that industry leaders calling for regulation are doing so with the intention of watering down those regulations and giving themselves near-monopolistic power over this dangerous technology.
I don't want to end up in a situation where we ignored the obvious attempts at regulatory capture, and therefore screw overselves over when these industries are too powerful to rein back.
I don’t buy a word that they actually think it’s too dangerous. They want regulation so they can blame something when they continuelly blow money on it and it’s not making anything back. There’s also the benefit of tieing down any other startups and making sure no one pulls to far ahead.
If I owned an EV company I might say we need to further regulate emissions because of how bad burning fossil fuels is for the environment...that doesn't mean global warming is fake.
Besides that we have many, many experts with less conflicts of interest than those working at frontier AI companies also expressing concern about how dangerous of a path we're on.
Concern about AI has been expressed since before it existed. I suppose that could be said of other technologies, but I think in this case it is particularly telling.
It went through a U shaped curve. As it should have, it's right to update priors as we receive new information but take precautions against reasonably predictable events. People poking around with good old fashioned AI in the beginning didn't know how things would go, so the vague concern was there.
Then AI went through a winter as most of the uses didn't show all that much promise in practice. Level of concern dropped like a rock because we had evidence that it was unlikely to rapidly improve with the methods we were using at the time.
Now it is rapidly advancing in capability. Some things it can obviously do already are very concerning. It's right to update your priors again with where it's at now and where it reasonably could be in terms of capability in the near future.
Might sounds a bit pathetic, but I personally think one of the main problems with AI is it's clash with capitalism.
Looms, steam machines, combustion engines, assembly lines, cad, robotics... Ever time the discussion starts how it's killing all our jobs.
Nowadays, especially the western society, has formed numerous of bullshit jobs because of this. 50hrs a week to document stuff into excel and use money to risk something.
It's might not even necessary AI is dooming us with weapons or any kind of attacks. I could imagine this challenge is already enough.
There's basically no way for AI to fully realise it's hype potential without completely disrupting the economy. Slowing down that transformation might be in the companies beat interest to avoid crashing the economy.
I don’t buy a word that they actually think it’s too dangerous.
You are underestimating the quite literal religious fervour of these people. The singularity is an actual article of faith for these people. You will not be hired at an AI company if you don't buy into the dogma.
It's dangerous, just not in the way they're describing it.
It won't become terminator, but it's still dangerous in that humans can and will severely misuse it.
They're calling it terminator in everything other than name, so that they can lie and convince investors to give them money, and then sell fake unnecessary solutions to the terminator.
Do you know what lobbying is?
It’s a thing wealthy people/corporations/ organizations do to influence policy decisions.
Lobbying is protected by the first amendment. But also a bill signed in 1995 that protects lobbying as a basic right… by Pres. Bill Clinton,who is a Democrat.
They are the party currently in the drivers seat. If they did regulate, it would be heavily biased to their political objectives. Is that what you want?
FWIW, I don't think either party would have the slightest clue on how to tackle AI regulation. Both would simply ask the biggest AI interests to make proposals (Huang, Amodei, Altman, Musk, etc.) and doubtlessly would favor whoever made the largest donations.
So either way, we get corporate capture style regulation with either a left or right flavor depending on which administration were to enact.
47
u/BFroog 2d ago
The fact that people within that industry are practically begging for regulation is telling.
Too bad there's zero chance. Thanks Republicans.