Food in general is regulated for very good reasons. Food borne diseases account for maybe a million death every year in the world, mostly from countries that don't have such regulations. And without going as far as death, even mild food poisoning can be quite disruptive. Milk in particular is critical because we give it to children who are the most vulnerable.
If anything needs to be regulated more than anything else, it is milk!
The article also mentions washing machines, which I think is a more level comparison. But washing machines can electrocute you, cause a fire or a flood. That kind of risk doesn't exist with AI, unless washing machine manufacturers took a page from Microsoft and sloppified their design I guess.
You can't think of any possible ways that AI, under unanticipated but not unprecedented circumstances (similar to those in which an appliance might malfunction), might cause significant harm?
Do they want regulation because they are behind and want the brakes applied to others so they can catch up using their huge pile of money, or are they so ahead they want to stifle the rest? My money, based on copilot is on the former.
If they were benign, why wait till now? Why didn't they say anything when OpenAi first released GPT and Microsoft was the biggest investor? Did something change between then and now?
What does it mean to "regulate AI"? At this point, apples-to-oranges comparisons make no sense at all.
Even when reducing the definition to only mean "frontier AI" (chatbots? coding models?), what does the title mean?
I'd say, the only thing that can be meaningfully regulated is how AI models are used, provided and developed, by descending order of importance.
---
Skimming the intro, this what I mean:
> rules to govern the technology including a legal obligation to a “victim” if their system was breached by rogue AI agents.
> He told the BBC: “Right now, your washing machine is subject to more safety rules than AI. Every carton of milk that you see in the grocery store is subject to safety rules and inspection.”
> There are growing calls from experts, politicians and regulators for tougher rules to control AI
The washing machine comparison is interesting, because hacked IoT devices are so common, and there is precedent to deny culpability of the owners of hacked devices. But that's already a thin line, isn't it?
I wouldn't say this is the same situation as with AI committing crimes due to misalignment.
I'd say the room for plausible deniability is mostly fictional right now for this, but there is a discussion to have.
Just not a broad discussion that in the end leads to the opposite of regulation: diffusing responsibility for AI actions into nowhere.
But if, as a thought experiment, Anthropic merged an exploit into Claude Code that DDOSed websites or whatever, it would be their responsibility, especially if the exploit it very hidden.
When people run unsupervised agents thar report their actions normally, but do unintended things, I'd say the responsibility is solely with the operator, just like we as developers are responsible for code we write using AI assistance.
Im all for regulating frontier models primarily, the level of compute they have is insane. OpenAI and Anthropic etc can hack into systems at a rate most of us could never afford the compute for, all on a whim.
Something being potentially extremely dangerous isn't super notable. We sell cars to everyone, and that's ~ a device for accelerating a ton or more of metal to potentially eye watering speeds. Propane tanks are already approximately a crappy bomb.
I've not seen anything so far that's remarkably more dangerous than a laundry list of commonly purchased items. Most of what I hear is either some sort of far fetched "the teenagers are going to be bio-engineering designer strains of polio", or some vague fears that the AI will become sentient and kill us all that vaguely reminds me of when the Manhattan Project thought they might cause earth's entire atmosphere to enter runaway fission.
I'm also distrustful because virtually all the experts stand to benefit from convincing us unregulated AI is dangerous. Namely, it's a compelling reason to ban Chinese and open weight models that are eating into their margins. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean that they'll need to substantiate their claims. I'm not trusting them at face value.
No. First of all, the expert consensus you're alluding to is a much narrower slice than you're making it sound. Secondly, it also isn't neutral rederivation, either. What you're mostly looking at is one opinion which is being passed around, based on a mix of hypotheticals and folklore.
This is a strawman attack, aside from simply being an inaccurate claim. The notion that AI poses no danger and all claims to the contrary are IPO manipulations requires extensive conspiratorial thinking.
You.. want to align an entity that by definition is more intelligent than an average human by a margin that is already difficult to comprehend. There is nothing solve here -- the question that you should ask is how that super intelligence will see a human race. That is it.
Still waiting for Boeing to catch up to this marketing renaissance. They are probably salivating at their projected valuation when they start saying things like “our planes could crash intentionally to kill everyone on board” or “our bombers might decide to blow up your cities instead of your enemy’s!”
Imagine the fortune food supply companies will make! “Our lettuce just might poison your child!”
Truly a golden age is near, and you, perceptive geniuses that you all are, will be the only ones not fooled, not for a second, because it all makes sense, always and forever, as long as you squint hard enough to close your eyes.
If I invent a new gun, we don't need new regulation to say that killing someone with it is illegal. The cyberterrorism that the big LLM providers commit is already illegal in current law and nobody does anything about it. New regulation won't change that, it would only protect these criminals from their competition.
Just make sure you are open to the idea. It is correct to be skeptical if you know anything at all about history, but be open to the idea if proof is presented.
Well duh. Milk can kill you, directly. Things you put in your body of course must have much higher regulation and safety concerns than computer programs that generate text and images (which are then, maybe, acted upon by humans without reviewing their truth).
These megacorps are doing their best to make their offerings sound scary, because scary == capable in marketing terms, and scary allows them to set up a regulatory moat preventing anyone from competing with them.
Food in general is regulated for very good reasons. Food borne diseases account for maybe a million death every year in the world, mostly from countries that don't have such regulations. And without going as far as death, even mild food poisoning can be quite disruptive. Milk in particular is critical because we give it to children who are the most vulnerable.
If anything needs to be regulated more than anything else, it is milk!
The article also mentions washing machines, which I think is a more level comparison. But washing machines can electrocute you, cause a fire or a flood. That kind of risk doesn't exist with AI, unless washing machine manufacturers took a page from Microsoft and sloppified their design I guess.
You can't think of any possible ways that AI, under unanticipated but not unprecedented circumstances (similar to those in which an appliance might malfunction), might cause significant harm?
Honestly a failure of imagination on your part if you think AI can’t cause significant harm. Except you don’t even have to imagine anymore.
Couldn't agree more... I remember studying undulant fever for example back in school in Malta:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brucellosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themistocles_Zammit
Do they want regulation because they are behind and want the brakes applied to others so they can catch up using their huge pile of money, or are they so ahead they want to stifle the rest? My money, based on copilot is on the former.
So according to your logic, there really is no benign reason a company may call for regulation.
If they were benign, why wait till now? Why didn't they say anything when OpenAi first released GPT and Microsoft was the biggest investor? Did something change between then and now?
Yes, the frontier models got vastly more capable?
I'd feel comfortable saying there's no benign reason _Microsoft_ would call for regulation.
true. it's always self interested obviously
Got AI?
What does it mean to "regulate AI"? At this point, apples-to-oranges comparisons make no sense at all.
Even when reducing the definition to only mean "frontier AI" (chatbots? coding models?), what does the title mean?
I'd say, the only thing that can be meaningfully regulated is how AI models are used, provided and developed, by descending order of importance.
---
Skimming the intro, this what I mean:
> rules to govern the technology including a legal obligation to a “victim” if their system was breached by rogue AI agents.
> He told the BBC: “Right now, your washing machine is subject to more safety rules than AI. Every carton of milk that you see in the grocery store is subject to safety rules and inspection.”
> There are growing calls from experts, politicians and regulators for tougher rules to control AI
The washing machine comparison is interesting, because hacked IoT devices are so common, and there is precedent to deny culpability of the owners of hacked devices. But that's already a thin line, isn't it?
I wouldn't say this is the same situation as with AI committing crimes due to misalignment.
I'd say the room for plausible deniability is mostly fictional right now for this, but there is a discussion to have.
Just not a broad discussion that in the end leads to the opposite of regulation: diffusing responsibility for AI actions into nowhere.
But if, as a thought experiment, Anthropic merged an exploit into Claude Code that DDOSed websites or whatever, it would be their responsibility, especially if the exploit it very hidden.
When people run unsupervised agents thar report their actions normally, but do unintended things, I'd say the responsibility is solely with the operator, just like we as developers are responsible for code we write using AI assistance.
So it's not a simple problem, I'll admit that.
Funny how it's always these mega corporations who own a piece of the AI pie who are the loudest about regulating it.
They are all scrambling to build a regulatory moat for themselves.
Im all for regulating frontier models primarily, the level of compute they have is insane. OpenAI and Anthropic etc can hack into systems at a rate most of us could never afford the compute for, all on a whim.
Yes, I totally agree. I find it funny.
It is almost as if they had something to gain from it:D
Operating systems are less regulated than milk, which is why they blue screen without consequences. Let's not entirely lose the plot here.
You don’t see how or why AI systems could be extremely dangerous, despite literally all experts converging towards a consensus that they are?
Something being potentially extremely dangerous isn't super notable. We sell cars to everyone, and that's ~ a device for accelerating a ton or more of metal to potentially eye watering speeds. Propane tanks are already approximately a crappy bomb.
I've not seen anything so far that's remarkably more dangerous than a laundry list of commonly purchased items. Most of what I hear is either some sort of far fetched "the teenagers are going to be bio-engineering designer strains of polio", or some vague fears that the AI will become sentient and kill us all that vaguely reminds me of when the Manhattan Project thought they might cause earth's entire atmosphere to enter runaway fission.
I'm also distrustful because virtually all the experts stand to benefit from convincing us unregulated AI is dangerous. Namely, it's a compelling reason to ban Chinese and open weight models that are eating into their margins. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean that they'll need to substantiate their claims. I'm not trusting them at face value.
Cars are more regulated than AI!
So, something with the potential to kill all humans isn’t notable to you?
What does Geoff Hinton have to gain?
This is a conspiracy theory FYI.
> something with the potential to kill all humans
[citation needed]
No. First of all, the expert consensus you're alluding to is a much narrower slice than you're making it sound. Secondly, it also isn't neutral rederivation, either. What you're mostly looking at is one opinion which is being passed around, based on a mix of hypotheticals and folklore.
This is a strawman attack, aside from simply being an inaccurate claim. The notion that AI poses no danger and all claims to the contrary are IPO manipulations requires extensive conspiratorial thinking.
the danger posed by AI is the same posed by nuclear weapons: it's the people, stupid.
Looking forward to your thesis where you’ve solved perpetual superintelligence alignment.
You.. want to align an entity that by definition is more intelligent than an average human by a margin that is already difficult to comprehend. There is nothing solve here -- the question that you should ask is how that super intelligence will see a human race. That is it.
If you believe the propaganda that AI will kill everyone, you need to step away from the marketing.
Still waiting for Boeing to catch up to this marketing renaissance. They are probably salivating at their projected valuation when they start saying things like “our planes could crash intentionally to kill everyone on board” or “our bombers might decide to blow up your cities instead of your enemy’s!”
Imagine the fortune food supply companies will make! “Our lettuce just might poison your child!”
Truly a golden age is near, and you, perceptive geniuses that you all are, will be the only ones not fooled, not for a second, because it all makes sense, always and forever, as long as you squint hard enough to close your eyes.
Is Nobel laureate Geoff Hinton marketing?
Linus Pauling won two nobel prizes. He also had a lot of goofy ideas.
If I invent a new gun, we don't need new regulation to say that killing someone with it is illegal. The cyberterrorism that the big LLM providers commit is already illegal in current law and nobody does anything about it. New regulation won't change that, it would only protect these criminals from their competition.
I don’t put AI in my body. Also milk is almost certainly over regulated.
Overregulated? Read what happened in the past and think again, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal
Just because something may be over regulated does not mean that zero regulation is needed.
Whst exactly is overregulated with milk in the US?
Just make sure you are open to the idea. It is correct to be skeptical if you know anything at all about history, but be open to the idea if proof is presented.
Well duh. Milk can kill you, directly. Things you put in your body of course must have much higher regulation and safety concerns than computer programs that generate text and images (which are then, maybe, acted upon by humans without reviewing their truth).
These megacorps are doing their best to make their offerings sound scary, because scary == capable in marketing terms, and scary allows them to set up a regulatory moat preventing anyone from competing with them.
It feels like RFK Jr. is likely to take exactly the wrong lesson from such a statement...
Says the major company who is furthest behind in AI right now…
Leading company calls for regulation: "They just want to build their moat." (inexplicably)
Trailing company calls for regulation: "They just want time to catch up."
Alarming how casual you all are about regulating and pacing the most risky technology ever developed.
Why is it more risky than nuclear weapons, or biological weapons?