Thread

1. gz5 · 1789870993 · focus · HN ↗

   <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;hnpmx" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;hnpmx

   all 3 can be true at same time:

   1. sensationalizing rarely helps and can obscure and hurt

   2. the AI capabilities are underrated

   3. attempted govt regulation is not the answer

   the intent, or lack of intent, of the agent is mainly irrelevant if it is in the hands of a human with &#x27;bad&#x27; intentions. what is more relevant are the capabilities of human + AI.

   1. f30e3dfed1c9 · 1789879298 · focus · HN ↗

      &quot;attempted govt regulation is not the answer&quot;

      Self-regulation? None at all?

      1. OutOfHere · 1789880582 · focus · HN ↗

         There already exist laws against hacking. Legal damages already can apply. Further laws aren&#x27;t necessary and will only suppress open-weight AI firms, making the monopoly of large AI firms more entrenched. See the first comment (by Brett Matson) on the archive link of the WSJ article.

         1. iAMkenough · 1789923977 · focus · HN ↗

            I think we need an AI sheriff that aggressively enforces the law.

            The current level of enforcement and the fine schedule is not enough of a deterrent to prevent these large corporations from breaking existing laws.

            Frequently make an example of them and you’ll be hailed a hero by the general populous.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.