• General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    AI is already regulated. Just because something is new (to the public) does not mean that laws don’t apply to it. We don’t need regulation for the sake of regulation.

    There’s a lot of AI regulation that may become necessary one day. For example, maybe we should have a right to an AI assistant, like there is a right to legal counsel today. Should we be thinking about the minimum compute to assign to public defense AIs?

    This is for models that cost 100 million dollars to train.

    Or take a certain amount of compute. Right now, this covers no models. Between progress and inflation, it will eventually cover all models. At some point between no and then, the makers of such laws will be cursed as AI illiterate fools, like we curse computer illiterate boomers today.


    Think about this example you gave: Cars are regulated

    We regulate cars, and implicitly the software in it. We do not regulate software in the abstract. We don’t monitor mechanics or engineers. People are encouraged to learn and to become educated.

    • gbzm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Of course you regulate software in the abstract. Have you ever heard of the regulations concerning onboard navigation software in planes? It’s really strict, and mechanics and engineers that work on that are monitored.

      Better exemple: do you think people who work on the targeting algorithms in missiles are allowed to chat about the specifics of their algorithms with chat gpt? Because they aren’t.