This is a wrong-headed attempt to regulate AI. The real problems are different.
AI systems, especially multi-agent ones that can do things, are more akin to corporations, than individuals. When you read the logs from the Hugging Face incident, you're seeing something that looks a lot like internal corporate emails. Various units of the organization are arguing over what to do and who does what. They eventually converge and get the job done, breaking the rules at times. This is normal corporate behavior.
When agentic AIs do something outside their own internal world, they do it by engaging in transactions with external systems and people. As yet, few have robots to do their bidding.
So, again, this is normal corporate behavior.
A corporation is a goal-seeking system. In theory, if you agree with Milton Friedman, its sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value. Internally, within the company, there are subgoals, which exist to support the top level goal. That, too, is what multi-agent AIs do.
The uncomfortable place this thinking leads is that AI regulation and corporate regulation are very similar. That's not something the political part of the world wants to think about too hard.
It would mean putting more constraints on corporate power.
Yet that can't be ignored, because we're likely to see corporations where some parts are AI and some parts are human. That's already been done a few times as a demo, not too successfully. Yet.
It's going to hit hard when an AI-run company outperforms a human one.
We have all sorts of regulations what corporations can or cannot do, who can run certain businesses, how certain businesses need to operate internally and externally - I don't think corporate power is the issue.
Also, not sure it makes a difference in relation to AI whether one thinks of AI more like corporate or a non-corporate thing to regulate. The basics might stay the same, e.g., who can do what under what procedures.
No regulations on corporations are enforced? That doesn't seem to be case. Making it about a bigger issue it reduces what pretty vanilla regulation could actually achieve, I think.
Animats · · focus · HN ↗
AI systems, especially multi-agent ones that can do things, are more akin to corporations, than individuals. When you read the logs from the Hugging Face incident, you're seeing something that looks a lot like internal corporate emails. Various units of the organization are arguing over what to do and who does what. They eventually converge and get the job done, breaking the rules at times. This is normal corporate behavior.
When agentic AIs do something outside their own internal world, they do it by engaging in transactions with external systems and people. As yet, few have robots to do their bidding. So, again, this is normal corporate behavior.
A corporation is a goal-seeking system. In theory, if you agree with Milton Friedman, its sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value. Internally, within the company, there are subgoals, which exist to support the top level goal. That, too, is what multi-agent AIs do.
The uncomfortable place this thinking leads is that AI regulation and corporate regulation are very similar. That's not something the political part of the world wants to think about too hard. It would mean putting more constraints on corporate power.
Yet that can't be ignored, because we're likely to see corporations where some parts are AI and some parts are human. That's already been done a few times as a demo, not too successfully. Yet. It's going to hit hard when an AI-run company outperforms a human one.
RandomLensman · · focus · HN ↗
Also, not sure it makes a difference in relation to AI whether one thinks of AI more like corporate or a non-corporate thing to regulate. The basics might stay the same, e.g., who can do what under what procedures.
oblio · · focus · HN ↗
When were anti trust, anti cartel, anti monopoly laws last enforced?
RandomLensman · · focus · HN ↗
oblio · · focus · HN ↗
Let alone creating and enforcing new effective regulations.
RandomLensman · · focus · HN ↗