Conversation
Notices
-
"noooooo stop running open source AIs on your own hardware only we can do that"
straitstimes.com/world/united-states/openai-chief-goes-before-us-congress-to-propose-licences-for-building-ai
- Weaf :jv::nv: likes this.
-
@jeffcliff @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 I expected this was the path we were headed as soon as everyone started drumming up FUD
-
@jeffcliff @BigDuck @Shadowman311 Exactly. They'll define "AI code" however they want to create a software blacklist. They'll recruit MS/Apple to enforce this at the OS level.
-
And if anyone doubts this
ask a random person on the street what AI is and see if they can differentiate "typing on a terminal" from "hacking"
this is who they are going to be convincing of the necessity of regulating AI
-
@Shadowman311 Lol there is absolutely no realistic way to enforce this.
-
Sure there is. They can make using GNU/Linux outside of Microsoft's walled garden illegal by considering it as a form of piracy
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff don't worry once we get the much needed regulations, the powers that be will put up an AI detection AI service that you can pay a monthly subscription for, but if you try to write your own you may be committing a crime :blobsmirk:
-
Deepfakes have and will remain the greatest threat to human civilization from AIs.
-
it is the greatest threat for hollywood
that should make you think about how bad it really is
-
It's a political and cultural threat. Once most people can't tell a chatbot from an idiot and can't tell a deep fake from an original we're going to hit new depths of low trust society.
-
I'm less worried about the 'ai terminator' style AIs and more worried about the 'you're not allowed to graduate university unless you use this AI microsoft office' and 'what do you mean you put a LLM into a hydroelectric dam and put it on the internet and now it's selling drugs on silkroad'
-
@jeffcliff @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 Calling it AI seems a bit dishonest
Its not Cortana or HAL it can't DO anything on its own.
-
@monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff @BigDuck @Shadowman311 Despite how incredibly irresponsible it is, corporations are already hooking these retarded LLMs into mission-critical systems and having them make "decisions" autonomously. It wouldn't surprise me even a little if I heard that the US and/or the Russians are putting these things into armed drones and sending them out to kill people.
-
That's the best part of GANs, by definition you can't train an AI to detect them because they get so good by training a detection AI alongside the main AI so the main AI eventually gets so good it's impossible for the detection AI to figure out.
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff I'm sure someone can get the federal government to print some money to make a quantum ai detection platform. They love printing money for those kinds of projects.
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff that's why gubment needs to regulate it first. call anyone who tries to trick ai a nazi or a terrorist.
-
And such an AI could be used to train and AI that could fool it 😜
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff banning things works. if it isn't working you aren't banning hard enough
-
That will definitely prevent all malicious actors from using AI for bad purposes.
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff oh yeah I'm absolutely shitposting and do not think any regulations should be enacted. I think writing and using computer programs of any kind is some kind of human right and it should be protected similar to how we protect the right to free speech and self defense (limiting government ability to regulate rather than limiting our access to the tools).
-
Well that's true to some extent, at least when you can trust the banning person to not be using the thing themselves.
And we can certainly trust the people behind MKULTRA, 9/11, the claim of WMD in Iraq, the claim of genocide in Kosovo, the claim of the holocaust, ect ect to NEVER use AI to spread falsehoods or misinformation.
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff I also don't really think banning things works. People are creative, and banning something tends to just push it underground more than actually stop it from happening.
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff I don't know. I mean most of the things that are banned in the US still go on with some regularity. One thing that was kind of amusing to watch (also tragic) was when stores started selling the fake weed stuff the government would scurry to figure out what chemical was sprayed on the herbs so they could ban that chemical while chemists were hard at work coming up with an analog that they could swap out when their product was inevitably made illegal. It went on for quite a while. I think the same kind of thing happened with the "bath salts", and before you know it you hear about people eating each other but the thing they were doing was still technically legal. Government bans are ineffective at stopping a particular behavior. Even in Japan where firearms are heavily regulated someone managed to tape a few pipes together and make a boom stick that changed the course of history.
-
Banning things absolutely does work and is done all the time. Look at Germany and how the US was able to use government force after WW2 to completely ban and censor any form of nationalism and completely change the culture.
Sure, you can't stop things entirely but that's never really the goal. The goal is to just suppress it enough to prevent it from influencing society in a major way. They could easily do that with AI, ban it enough that the average dissident cannot use it to fight the system while the system is able to use it to crush dissent without much trouble.
-
This is just not true. You are looking at bans as if they are supposed to be a watertight seal as opposed to a dam which only blocks most of the flow. It's just not true, and with your line of thinking you might as well allow murder because it happens a lot even when it's banned.
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff I think certain behaviors deserve punishment even if you can't stop them. Murder and rape are 2 that I think deserve the most punishment. The reason most people don't commit murder is not simply because it's not legal. There are other factors at play. If we suddenly decided that it was perfectly legal I don't think everyone is suddenly out shooting the neighbor the next day. Some people might be held back by the law, but most people are more concerned with the ethical issues in their own moral framework, and those who can get past that generally don't have much regard for whether or not it's legal. Some may try to avoid getting caught, but then you have people who basically suicide by cop.
-
>If we suddenly decided that it was perfectly legal I don't think everyone is suddenly out shooting the neighbor the next day
Have you ever heard of black people? Also this is just not true even among White people. Laws deter crime and reduce it's frequency, there is literally 0 evidence to the contrary.
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff is it legal for black people? Damn who knew. My point is that people do the crime in spite of the law, but some crimes deserve punishment so we put laws in place that allow the state to execute said punishment. Some people are probably deterred because of an aversion to the punishment, but it doesn't seem particularly effective for things that are easier to hide or work around. Murder is pretty obvious and hard to cover up so I would imagine the law may act more as a deterrent than say alcohol or marijuana prohibition ever did. In both cases, the black market allowed for the banned substances to become highly profitable for people who are less concerned about laws.
I'm not even certain how you would propose such evidence be collected since there are lots of other factors that affect behavior outside of what congress decides is right and wrong. It's not like you can really do an accurate a/b test to see whether more or less people partake in certain activities when they are made illegal.
-
@KitlerIs6 @caekislove @BigDuck @Shadowman311 @monsterislandcolonizer @jeffcliff I actually said I think it may play a role but it's hardly the only variable. For some activities it probably has a greater effect, but I suspect that's related to how easy people believe it is to not get caught or work around. I don't really care to argue about it. The whole point was that I don't think trying to prevent people from writing certain types of software is going to be particularly successful. Just like I don't think banning guns will stop people from making guns. That isn't to say it has 0 effect, and if your only point is that it has an effect I've already acknowledged it has some.
-
>is it legal for black people? Damn who knew.
No but the more lawless their communities have become, the more they literally have just gone out and shot eachother. On the other hand when we were policing them harshly their communities were less violent.
It's honestly just common sense that telling people "the police are going to put you in jail or kill you if you do x" is going to discourage people from doing x as much as they would have. If you can't see that there's no point in arguing with you because even if I spend the 20 minutes required to find the studies that prove making something illegal deters it, you'll find a way to do mental gymnastics around that as much as you are doing around basic common sense right now.
Shadowman311
Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
Caek Islove 🍰 ❤️
Jeff Cliff
:epstein: Mr. Quackers :duckie: :sadcowboy:
KitlerIs6"
Hollyjollytailspike
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the