[ayakang31415]

I still don't have any sense of urgency to create and to regulate AI safety protocols. AI that we call is just software with tuned parameters. You input data into it, and it does some computation on chips, and it spits out data. That is all it needs. My sense is that no harm can come from it, but some harm can be inflicted by people who use it.

[izzydata]

I don't think there is any possibility of the current "AI" suddenly doing anything damaging on its own or anything at all on its own. The worst that I can see happening which is probably already happening is people using it to assist them with various crimes. Such as social engineering using convincing generated voices and photos or even just fake information.

[ayakang31415]

To deal with such case, we already have existing laws to deal with it. My qualms with AI regulation is "why do we need separate AI safety agencies and laws?"

[JW_00000]

While I agree in a general sense, it might make sense to regulate the tools themselves.

An analogy is gun control laws. Murder is a crime, whether it happens with a gun or without, so in theory there would be no need to regulate guns ("guns don't kill people etc."). But in most countries in the world we still regulate them.

Maybe it makes sense to regulate AI similarly? Requiring that some guardrails are built in to prevent it being used to generate fake information or information that helps to commit crimes. Making sure that it does not leak private information (and being able to prove this somehow). Regulating if and how it can be used as a therapist.

Although I wonder if it isn't too soon still for such regulation.

[arsome]

Yeah - this stupidity with regulating AI goes hand in hand with regulating cryptography - illegal math is simply not feasible.

[Eisenstein]

Illegal chemistry is also not feasible, but we can restrict availability to certain chemicals to try and prevent people from doing things likes like making bombs or turning their neighborhood radioactive while messing around. Of course some people will find a way but that doesn't mean the door has to be left completely open for anyone with a credit card to be able to order large amounts of high purity H2O2 for example.

I am not advocating for this particular issue, I am pointing out the flaw in your metaphor -- you can't restrict the math but unless people figure out how to make their own wafer fab then you can at least try to restrict the ability to do it.

[drdaeman]

But is chemistry illegal? I think anyone can have all the equations they want to have (like, idk, U238 -> Th234 + alpha particle) - just can't possess some actual substances (Uranium). So I don't think the comparison is valid.

[Eisenstein]

That's exactly the point I was making. It seems I did a poor job -- it is impossible to make chemistry illegal but it is possible to regulate possession of some chemicals.

[imiric]

> My sense is that no harm can come from it, but some harm can be inflicted by people who use it.

The concern is not that AI is harmful on its own, and that it will unleash a Skynet scenario. It's precisely that it will be abused by humans in ways we can't even predict yet. The same can be said about any technology, but AI is particularly concerning because of its unlimited potential, extremely fast pace of development, and humanity's lack of preparation on a political, legal and social level to deal with the consequences. So I think you're severely underestimating "some harm" there.

[mitthrowaway2]

The thing you say the concern is not, is exactly what my primary concern is!

[drdaeman]

This is some weird nonsense that folks who read too much sci-fi (not realizing how unrealistic it is, with the state of modern society and technology) seem to fantasize about, and politician talking heads happily repeat because populism is on the rise again and it's easier to fight imaginary windmills than real world issues.

I believe a more realistic concern is that some workers will lose their jobs to automation as it becomes capable of running more and more complicated tasks, because it's cheaper to run or, more likely, contract to run some fancy software that can be taught its job in a natural language. And if this scales up it may require significant socioeconomic changes to work around the associated issues.