The US has a long history of watching what corporations and businesses do when there are no regulations and oversight. Laws and regulations have always been necessary to protect labor, wages, the environment, consumer product protection, consumer financial protection, and on and on. In no case has an industry properly policed itself and has not been driven by human greed.
Yup. And often it’s the China “outdoing us” fear… like if we regulate wages or environmental harm. And now AI. Move fast and break people, our planet, or anything as long as capitalism can reign free and the richest thrive.
Once again the Republicans can't agree among themselves.
They twirl about like crazed windvanes on regulating AI. Regulating AI is a no-brainer. We regulate what goes into toothpaste so why in god's hand would we not want to regulate arguably the potentially most powerful technology we've ever made?
AI regulation from Trump? The only thing he understands is grift - cash money, preferably in large sacks - so slip him a bribe … and a wide-open market is yours!
I find all the freaking out about AI to be much ado about nothing. People like Ted Cruz is clueless about AI, as are most of his colleagues on the Hill. OMG! What China creates a popular AI product? What idiot legislator thinks the US will stop developing AI or stop using it if China creates a better product or two than Microsoft et al.?
I have found that AI generally is dummerer [sic] than I expected it would be. It does improve and create photos and vids that look great, but the characters are always too perfect - real humans do not have perfect complexions, etc. As for AI help with getting quick answers for obscure questions like |What was the median home price in 1980?", what I got was a load of drivel explaining mortgages and providing data for everything but 1980, rather than a simple answer $67K. AI not only does not understand plain English all that well, it also writes essays like a 6th grader.
So basically, I am not expecting to be enslaved by robots or something. My only concern is about using AI to make decisions that impact people, like denying SSA pensions, or healthcare, or any number of internet scams to con you into thinking you are interacting with a person rather than a chat program. Yes, Chat AI is crap too. I chatted 7 minutes with a Logitech chat agent today before it got confused enough to transfer me to a human, who also could not simply send me the access code I needed to alter their software. I finally logged off and hacked my software myself.
True enough. In 10 years, AI might prove to be the Tesla Cybertruck - a complete dud. If it does catch on, it could be transparent. It is already costing jobs, but it is creating new ones too. To me, success is not achieved by working harder - just smarter.
I'm not here to argue the merits of AI or whether or not it will be the miraculous transformation it's made out to be by its supporters. I'm not qualified to make those judgements and feel the what we're seeing now is just the early stages with the future tbd. I simply feel it's ridiculous to block any state level regulation for a decade just because the industry has evidently purchased Ted Cruz and any number of his compatriots. It's obviously an attempt to circumvent any regulations coming out of California that might be stricter than what DC can muster (hint: probably not much if the crypto bill that just passed is any indication).
I think Cruz’s trick to get around the Byrd rule will still violate it. Extraneous matter includes measures whose budgetary impact is incidental to its true intent. The intent here is clearly not budgetary, it’s conditional policy based financial punishment.
10 years seems absolutely nuts for a ban on ANY state regulation of AI - and, what, would it also outlaw the AI regulation already in place like California's very reasonable watermark legislation? I agree we shouldn't have a patchwork of regulation but I'd rather have that than no regulation, which is what this essentially promises (given we can't seem to get congress to do much of anything). What it all tells me is that Silicon Valley is deathly afraid California will get wise to them and start seriously regulating AI once the implications of AI become clear, especially in the realm of job losses. Ted Cruz to the rescue (said no one, ever).
The US has a long history of watching what corporations and businesses do when there are no regulations and oversight. Laws and regulations have always been necessary to protect labor, wages, the environment, consumer product protection, consumer financial protection, and on and on. In no case has an industry properly policed itself and has not been driven by human greed.
Yup. And often it’s the China “outdoing us” fear… like if we regulate wages or environmental harm. And now AI. Move fast and break people, our planet, or anything as long as capitalism can reign free and the richest thrive.
Vote ever Republican out at the first chance we get
Once again the Republicans can't agree among themselves.
They twirl about like crazed windvanes on regulating AI. Regulating AI is a no-brainer. We regulate what goes into toothpaste so why in god's hand would we not want to regulate arguably the potentially most powerful technology we've ever made?
AI regulation from Trump? The only thing he understands is grift - cash money, preferably in large sacks - so slip him a bribe … and a wide-open market is yours!
I find all the freaking out about AI to be much ado about nothing. People like Ted Cruz is clueless about AI, as are most of his colleagues on the Hill. OMG! What China creates a popular AI product? What idiot legislator thinks the US will stop developing AI or stop using it if China creates a better product or two than Microsoft et al.?
I have found that AI generally is dummerer [sic] than I expected it would be. It does improve and create photos and vids that look great, but the characters are always too perfect - real humans do not have perfect complexions, etc. As for AI help with getting quick answers for obscure questions like |What was the median home price in 1980?", what I got was a load of drivel explaining mortgages and providing data for everything but 1980, rather than a simple answer $67K. AI not only does not understand plain English all that well, it also writes essays like a 6th grader.
So basically, I am not expecting to be enslaved by robots or something. My only concern is about using AI to make decisions that impact people, like denying SSA pensions, or healthcare, or any number of internet scams to con you into thinking you are interacting with a person rather than a chat program. Yes, Chat AI is crap too. I chatted 7 minutes with a Logitech chat agent today before it got confused enough to transfer me to a human, who also could not simply send me the access code I needed to alter their software. I finally logged off and hacked my software myself.
Sure - but 10 years? We've had massive tech gains in the last 10 years, jump forward 10 years and imagine AI then.
True enough. In 10 years, AI might prove to be the Tesla Cybertruck - a complete dud. If it does catch on, it could be transparent. It is already costing jobs, but it is creating new ones too. To me, success is not achieved by working harder - just smarter.
I'm not here to argue the merits of AI or whether or not it will be the miraculous transformation it's made out to be by its supporters. I'm not qualified to make those judgements and feel the what we're seeing now is just the early stages with the future tbd. I simply feel it's ridiculous to block any state level regulation for a decade just because the industry has evidently purchased Ted Cruz and any number of his compatriots. It's obviously an attempt to circumvent any regulations coming out of California that might be stricter than what DC can muster (hint: probably not much if the crypto bill that just passed is any indication).
I think Cruz’s trick to get around the Byrd rule will still violate it. Extraneous matter includes measures whose budgetary impact is incidental to its true intent. The intent here is clearly not budgetary, it’s conditional policy based financial punishment.
10 years seems absolutely nuts for a ban on ANY state regulation of AI - and, what, would it also outlaw the AI regulation already in place like California's very reasonable watermark legislation? I agree we shouldn't have a patchwork of regulation but I'd rather have that than no regulation, which is what this essentially promises (given we can't seem to get congress to do much of anything). What it all tells me is that Silicon Valley is deathly afraid California will get wise to them and start seriously regulating AI once the implications of AI become clear, especially in the realm of job losses. Ted Cruz to the rescue (said no one, ever).