> We must move past vague discussions of “AI” and instead isolate the specific types of systems that are creating problems.
This is absolutely correct and its surprising how rarely you see commenters in the media push to go into the specifics on this. AI is just matrix math and its what you connect that math to that matters, we should talk a little more about what we are willing to connect AI to and little less about how scary or capable the models appear.
A point that Yann LeCun has been making for a while is that it's meaningless to regulate AI, but we want to regulate applications. For instance, you don't want autonomous vehicles to hit people, whether they use AI or not. In practice, most applications of AI are already regulated.
look, there's a lot of room to complain about moving the goalposts of what counts as AI, I get it
but I don't think a simple PID controller in the autopilotnmanaging altitude, heading, and the like has ever been categorized as "AI." Cybernetics,
maybe.
even the rules managing the flight envelope and MCAS on the 737 Max, or the Airbus implementations of flight law, sure seem to have relatively few of the attributes that tend to get the label these days
It means you are out here autonomously dropping logical fallacies.
Autopilots are autonomous, without AI. lane following and collision avoidance in most cars, don't use "AI" they use classic computer vision and good old fashioned radar.
The difference here is that claude code fails to perform what it's intended to do without a model attached, a plane/car doesn't.
Classical Computer Vision is AI. Computer Vision is a subfield of AI since the beginning.
People may confuse AI with Machine Learning. “Classical” computer vision generally means non-learning based techniques. But ML is also not new to computer vision. So non-classical actually means using Deep Learning.
So today when people say AI they actually mean Deep Learning.
After staring at your comment for a while I think what's happened is you've confused the non-AI autopilot and flight control systems used in an airliner with the AI-driven autonomy being used in military drones.
GP's point is that the goalposts of what counts as "AI" have been constantly shifted for decades, and right not it seems that even many HN commenters seem to have somehow gotten the idea that "AI" strictly means "deep learning neural networks" (or something even more specific like "generative transformers"). GP just went a bit too far in the opposite direction, being too inclusive in their definition.
FWIW, my working definition of "AI" is "anything discussed in the latest edition of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach". It seems to work well.
> GP just went a bit too far in the opposite direction, being too inclusive in their definition.
> FWIW, my working definition of "AI" is "anything discussed in the latest edition of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach". It seems to work well.
You're kidding, right? It's never been an obscure term. If a computer is making decisions, that's AI.
Here's a pretty common usage: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/broodwar/comments/ixzwl4/are_there_better_ai_options_for_remastered/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/broodwar/comments/ixzwl4/are_there_...
> I'm getting back into [Starcraft: ] Brood War after a long break. Don't have the time to play ladder, but want to be able to play 1v1 against AI, however, the stock AI in remastered is terrible
Game AI is invariably called by that term and generally implemented as a fairly simple if-else ladder. In a taxonomy I guess it would be called an "expert system"; I can find them mentioned in the detailed table of contents to AIMA (3rd edition), but not in the simplified table of contents to AIMA (4th). They might still be in there, in the same section titled "Making Simple Decisions". Norvig doesn't really bother to consider expert systems with probabilities constrained to 1 or 0, though.
The fact this thread descended into a load of philosophical chin stroking about what is truly AI perfectly illustrates the core point that all regulation should just be targeted at use cases and what people are doing with the software.
If a plane could run on some sort of local LLM it should still be governed by the same laws and damages when something goes wrong same as people don't spend time quibbling about the implementation language of software they care about demonstrating capabilities.
Ofcourse they do reasoning and planning, it's entirely encoded in software ofcourse, but modern autopilots don't just hold a course, they perform maneuvers and follow waypoints the process of turning the objective turn 35 degrees to actuator inputs is reasoning and planning.
AI is not magic it's software, the definition is far from pointless, google maps giving you a route to your destination is AI.
In the academic definition of AI (which includes things like pathfinding with A* or Djikstra's algorithm) autopilots are definitely AI.
The popular definition of AI seems to shift every couple of years to follow hype cycles. Chess computers used to be AI (and fit your definition), now they are not. Not sure if Resnet is still AI today, or if autopilots still qualify
You can't say that to an mri machine that detects and highlights tumors. You can't say it to jev either, nor googles spam filters. But all these are built in the same way as any LLM. The term AI is not restricted to chat based LLMs.
None of that applies to autopilots though and it’s disingenuous for anyone to say that an autopilot is an AI rather than an automated system designed for a very specific task.
An autopilot is cybernetic without being intelligent.
I was giving a framing around its complete lack of generality or intelligence. Rather than contemporary definitions of AI shifting, what is being shown is that previous definitions of AI were misapplied in the hope that the field might bootstrap itself into existence, which it’s done.
As I’ve said elsewhere - an autopilot is cybernetic, it responds to inputs and stimulus in data but it doesn’t possess anything we’d now regard as falling under intelligence because it’s a strictly coded deterministic system and designed for it’s specific environment. I couldn’t take the autopilot from a Boeing and put it into an Airbus and hope for any kind of useful result. I could take a human pilot trained on a Boeing and put them in an Airbus or a Cessna, and if push came to shove in an emergency, they could probably do a decent job of getting the thing pointed in the right direction and landed on the ground.
Of course, "AI" in a previous generation was used to refer to machine learning, while "AI" now is used to refer to LLMs. I don't think LLMs are the tool to use to operate a vehicle.
I would say minimally regulated. For instance, felons are for the most part not allowed them, and there are certain locations where they are not allowed to be carried.
Certainly, there are exceptions. Some people (think "islands") who are forbodden from using the internet freely. The technology continues to exist largely unencumbered, but select circumstances where the risk is considered "extraordinary" are given to exception. Guns in the USA, likewise, are seen as "not the problem" except where having a gun would be considered a dangerous thing for a specific reason (schools, courts, etc.).
Full disclosure: I'm not American and do prefer a little gun regulation generally.
I think you're arguing the opposite of what you think you are.
Regulating gun ownership is exactly regulating the application.
In your analogy, the gun is the AI. What you can do with the gun is the application.
Different actors with different credentials in different contexts will have different requirements and permissions of what they can do with the technology, be it a gun or AI.
I am having a brain aneurysm trying to understand this
> Regulating gun ownership is exactly regulating the application. In your analogy, the gun is the AI. What you can do with the gun is the application.
From what I can tell, you are arguing that gun laws is reasonable.
> Different actors with different credentials in different contexts will have different requirements and permissions of what they can do with the technology, be it a gun or AI.
But this, is going against that, this is saying, "why should we ban AI or gun when they can be used for both good and bad. What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved"
"Different actors with different credentials in different contexts"
The argument is that the military or police have a need for access to guns, whereas the lunatic on the street corner (or any random citizen) does not. The same argument applies for access to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons... or autonomous hacking/killing machines...
> From what I can tell, you are arguing that gun laws is reasonable.
You aren’t going to repeal the second amendment, so reasonable or not it’s a fact that everyone has to contend with. Do we all want guns? No. Do we all want AI? Also no.
> What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved
No, we don’t want to ban bad. Banning doesn’t really work - the effort to reward ratio isn’t great. We want to regulate bad and see if we can minimize the damage it can do.
There are levels to it as well. Take alcohol and driving, for example:
Level A: Who can drink it (possession and consumption law)
Level B: What you can do while drunk (DUI law)
Level C: What you can do while drinking (open container law)
All orthogonal to things like reckless driving, endangerment and creating injurious accidents, which are already criminalized without needing additional laws against alcohol use to enforce them.
> From what I can tell, you are arguing that gun laws is reasonable.
Correct.
> But this, is going against that, this is saying, "why should we ban AI or gun when they can be used for both good and bad. What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved"
Not at all. I'm saying regulations do that and they are a good thing. Not everybody can own an assault rifle. Some of the people who can, are not allowed to carry it on the streets. Police will have very different regulations towards their gun use. The army, another set of regulations. The list goes on. Even in countries who have lax gun laws, usually not all guns are allowed to everyone in all situations. No one is allowed to carry a nuke into a shopping centre.
Note that regulating and banning are very different things. I don't think you can fully ban guns or AI.
Why regulate cars when vehicular manslaughter is already illegal?
That is, in order to drive a car you need to go through the hoops, follow a training, get a permit that can be taken away again and needs to be renewed, etc. It's not a big jump to also make that apply to guns - which I'm sure is already the case in many states.
I mean you can legally own a gun in most European countries too if you really want to, but there's various mandatory trainings and conditions to comply to, registration procedures, and I'm sure you may get unannounced home visits to double check you've stored your guns (and ammo) correctly. As per the agreement.
jimmyjazz14 · · focus · HN ↗
This is absolutely correct and its surprising how rarely you see commenters in the media push to go into the specifics on this. AI is just matrix math and its what you connect that math to that matters, we should talk a little more about what we are willing to connect AI to and little less about how scary or capable the models appear.
yodsanklai · · focus · HN ↗
thaumasiotes · · focus · HN ↗
What would it mean for a vehicle to be "autonomous", but to "not use AI"?
ehe78qhe · · focus · HN ↗
thaumasiotes · · focus · HN ↗
What do you mean? I can just as easily say that Claude Code operates "without AI". It would make about as much sense.
maddie0 · · focus · HN ↗
but I don't think a simple PID controller in the autopilotnmanaging altitude, heading, and the like has ever been categorized as "AI." Cybernetics, maybe.
even the rules managing the flight envelope and MCAS on the 737 Max, or the Airbus implementations of flight law, sure seem to have relatively few of the attributes that tend to get the label these days
KaiserPro · · focus · HN ↗
Autopilots are autonomous, without AI. lane following and collision avoidance in most cars, don't use "AI" they use classic computer vision and good old fashioned radar.
The difference here is that claude code fails to perform what it's intended to do without a model attached, a plane/car doesn't.
ozgung · · focus · HN ↗
People may confuse AI with Machine Learning. “Classical” computer vision generally means non-learning based techniques. But ML is also not new to computer vision. So non-classical actually means using Deep Learning.
So today when people say AI they actually mean Deep Learning.
LtWorf · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
Thankfully, courts will look at it differently.
ehe78qhe · · focus · HN ↗
Sharlin · · focus · HN ↗
FWIW, my working definition of "AI" is "anything discussed in the latest edition of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach". It seems to work well.
thaumasiotes · · focus · HN ↗
> FWIW, my working definition of "AI" is "anything discussed in the latest edition of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach". It seems to work well.
You're kidding, right? It's never been an obscure term. If a computer is making decisions, that's AI.
Here's a pretty common usage: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/broodwar/comments/ixzwl4/are_there_better_ai_options_for_remastered/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/broodwar/comments/ixzwl4/are_there_...
> I'm getting back into [Starcraft: ] Brood War after a long break. Don't have the time to play ladder, but want to be able to play 1v1 against AI, however, the stock AI in remastered is terrible
Game AI is invariably called by that term and generally implemented as a fairly simple if-else ladder. In a taxonomy I guess it would be called an "expert system"; I can find them mentioned in the detailed table of contents to AIMA (3rd edition), but not in the simplified table of contents to AIMA (4th). They might still be in there, in the same section titled "Making Simple Decisions". Norvig doesn't really bother to consider expert systems with probabilities constrained to 1 or 0, though.
Sharlin · · focus · HN ↗
Tanjreeve · · focus · HN ↗
If a plane could run on some sort of local LLM it should still be governed by the same laws and damages when something goes wrong same as people don't spend time quibbling about the implementation language of software they care about demonstrating capabilities.
throwawayffffas · · focus · HN ↗
ehe78qhe · · focus · HN ↗
If a basic heading hold PID loop is AI so is a thermostat from 1990. At which point the word is so meaningless it is obviously a useless definition.
throwawayffffas · · focus · HN ↗
AI is not magic it's software, the definition is far from pointless, google maps giving you a route to your destination is AI.
dminik · · focus · HN ↗
wongarsu · · focus · HN ↗
The popular definition of AI seems to shift every couple of years to follow hype cycles. Chess computers used to be AI (and fit your definition), now they are not. Not sure if Resnet is still AI today, or if autopilots still qualify
gizajob · · focus · HN ↗
throwawayffffas · · focus · HN ↗
gizajob · · focus · HN ↗
An autopilot is cybernetic without being intelligent.
throwawayffffas · · focus · HN ↗
Sharlin · · focus · HN ↗
gizajob · · focus · HN ↗
As I’ve said elsewhere - an autopilot is cybernetic, it responds to inputs and stimulus in data but it doesn’t possess anything we’d now regard as falling under intelligence because it’s a strictly coded deterministic system and designed for it’s specific environment. I couldn’t take the autopilot from a Boeing and put it into an Airbus and hope for any kind of useful result. I could take a human pilot trained on a Boeing and put them in an Airbus or a Cessna, and if push came to shove in an emergency, they could probably do a decent job of getting the thing pointed in the right direction and landed on the ground.
toofy · · focus · HN ↗
wartywhoa23 · · focus · HN ↗
Cthulhu_ · · focus · HN ↗
Of course, "AI" in a previous generation was used to refer to machine learning, while "AI" now is used to refer to LLMs. I don't think LLMs are the tool to use to operate a vehicle.
truculent · · focus · HN ↗
hashstring · · focus · HN ↗
Firearms are an application of more general techniques like combustion, which your car is (probably) using too.
We could definitely draw lines at points where it makes most sense.
AI to detect melanomas is a completely different application than AI for autonomous warfare.
throwawayffffas · · focus · HN ↗
amanaplanacanal · · focus · HN ↗
tescreal · · focus · HN ↗
Full disclosure: I'm not American and do prefer a little gun regulation generally.
amanaplanacanal · · focus · HN ↗
cassianoleal · · focus · HN ↗
Regulating gun ownership is exactly regulating the application.
In your analogy, the gun is the AI. What you can do with the gun is the application.
Different actors with different credentials in different contexts will have different requirements and permissions of what they can do with the technology, be it a gun or AI.
anon-3988 · · focus · HN ↗
> Regulating gun ownership is exactly regulating the application. In your analogy, the gun is the AI. What you can do with the gun is the application.
From what I can tell, you are arguing that gun laws is reasonable.
> Different actors with different credentials in different contexts will have different requirements and permissions of what they can do with the technology, be it a gun or AI.
But this, is going against that, this is saying, "why should we ban AI or gun when they can be used for both good and bad. What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved"
TalkingCodeMonk · · focus · HN ↗
"Different actors with different credentials in different contexts"
The argument is that the military or police have a need for access to guns, whereas the lunatic on the street corner (or any random citizen) does not. The same argument applies for access to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons... or autonomous hacking/killing machines...
cassianoleal · · focus · HN ↗
pixelatedindex · · focus · HN ↗
You aren’t going to repeal the second amendment, so reasonable or not it’s a fact that everyone has to contend with. Do we all want guns? No. Do we all want AI? Also no.
> What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved
No, we don’t want to ban bad. Banning doesn’t really work - the effort to reward ratio isn’t great. We want to regulate bad and see if we can minimize the damage it can do.
CGMthrowaway · · focus · HN ↗
Level A: Who can drink it (possession and consumption law)
Level B: What you can do while drunk (DUI law)
Level C: What you can do while drinking (open container law)
All orthogonal to things like reckless driving, endangerment and creating injurious accidents, which are already criminalized without needing additional laws against alcohol use to enforce them.
cassianoleal · · focus · HN ↗
Correct.
> But this, is going against that, this is saying, "why should we ban AI or gun when they can be used for both good and bad. What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved"
Not at all. I'm saying regulations do that and they are a good thing. Not everybody can own an assault rifle. Some of the people who can, are not allowed to carry it on the streets. Police will have very different regulations towards their gun use. The army, another set of regulations. The list goes on. Even in countries who have lax gun laws, usually not all guns are allowed to everyone in all situations. No one is allowed to carry a nuke into a shopping centre.
Note that regulating and banning are very different things. I don't think you can fully ban guns or AI.
Cthulhu_ · · focus · HN ↗
That is, in order to drive a car you need to go through the hoops, follow a training, get a permit that can be taken away again and needs to be renewed, etc. It's not a big jump to also make that apply to guns - which I'm sure is already the case in many states.
I mean you can legally own a gun in most European countries too if you really want to, but there's various mandatory trainings and conditions to comply to, registration procedures, and I'm sure you may get unannounced home visits to double check you've stored your guns (and ammo) correctly. As per the agreement.
That sounds pretty reasonable to me.