How do we protect people’s livelihoods without engraining regulatory capture? Interested in HN’s thoughts.
<s> It won’t matter in a few years when AGI kills us all. </s>
Some amount of regulation, in particular in regards to reporting biases installed into the systems is probably worth some merits.
What, if, for example, we’ll have a mass information system that would start pushing something that is very beneficial for special interest communities (say community is furries and this increases their dating pool), but tends to result in higher level of depression and suicide in teenagers. And then we also find that overall the system reduces mortality, by providing high quality medical advice.
Surely shutting down the system would not be a good idea. And requiring private enterprise to change their messaging infringes on free speech. But at least requiring to properly disclose biases is likely a good idea.
If you mean it in a sense of "what about Skynet?", then you regulate specific uses of AI which carry such danger rather than AI itself. I don't think this even needs to be AI-specific; if we, say, required formal verification of decision making algorithms to match the spec, that would already cover it.
If you mean it in a sense of "what about all the lost jobs?", then we should start seriously talking about UBI, and how to fund it by taxing automation.
And before somebody says “we should address problems before they happen” the challenge with AI is we don’t know exactly what problems will happen or what effective regulation would be.
It makes sense to say new buildings have to meet fire safety regulations that are based on learnings from past fires. AI is too new; everyone is either guessing or lobbying for personal benefit.
We should be vigilant, but I don’t for a second believe the “any regulation is better than nothing” rhetoric from those who stand to gain.
I'm not sure how you'd test this hypothesis, but it certainly looks like a tonne of the ongoing FAANG layoffs are based on assumptions about a decreased need for low-mid level programmers.
When governments make decisions in a rush, the decisions are generally not very well thought out.
I therefore think it's a good idea to have a plan for AI induced unemployment before people take to the streets because they have no job, no hope of a job, and no money left to pay the bills.
I have no idea how far away economic mass unemployment is, and I'm not convinced the current indicators in specific fields (much as it affects those fields) is "it", but I have seen a lot of news stories about governments getting surprised by things everyone was warning them about and they ignored.
I'm only suggesting that the official story doesn't stand up to any sort of critical analysis. Yes there were many witnesses. I don't know what all of the witness accounts were and how those filtered down into the official story.
What I'm suggesting is that the official account makes no sense. Mary Lincoln Todd waits for Booth to do all of his theatrics, instead of immediately screaming "EVERYONE WITH A GUN SHOOT THAT MAN".
I am not suggesting it anything beyond that. But I am not terminally naïve.
I challenge you to look for good historical analysis of the situation. There isn't that much.
Agreed! That would be an ideal response, but statistically how often does the ideal situation happen in the real world?
I would say it is equally likely that Booth did some parkour move to drop 15 feet and be minimally breaking his leg? Or, more likely, the adrenaline, and flight mode, after killing someone allowed him to not even feel the pain in the moment?
