> 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.
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 ↗
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.