Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • good luck having those rules audited reliably.
    by senectus1
  • The owners usually, which means the capitalists, not the working class.
    by jeena
  • There will be many scientists, myself included, that would band together to break the cartel if it forms. It's just a matter of money. It is absurd.

    Any logic shows that this is really about their valuations and being tired of innovating instead of having any safety concerns. What would happen if the US did this? Chinese and EU labs would eventually win. And then either the US becomes a backwater or they have to eventually spend the money to keep up anyway. But in the meantime they will have bought themselves a few years at insane valuations.

    Also, look at the stark choice they want to offer "we'll kill everyone or you give us the power to do whatever we want with the most important tech around". That's it. If we aren't in an oligarchy now, we will be if this goes through. They're going to end up stealing trillions of dollars from the rest of society.

    by light_hue_1
  • > Chinese and EU labs

    China simply steals from the US.

    EU is in a lethargic state of sleep.

    by cynicalsecurity
  • China probably would win.

    If America regulates AI, you can bet the EU would do it ten times over

    by anon291
  • RSI scenario is not scientist-limited though. So, you'd better get cracking if you want to catch up before it's impossible. Will first need to raise some serious capital too...
    by skew-aberration
  • Me.
    by angusik
  • The people with money, obviously.
    by rnd0
  • If you want a seat at the table then your AI must prove itself capable of winning some competition against the incumbents. How about a nice game of chess?
    by injidup
  • Something that’s both civilised and representative of the future. Stratagema? Or Mornington Crescent?
    by sunrunner
  • What rules need to change that wouldn't adversely affect existing freedoms?
    by infinite_spin
  • That is simply not possible, they are mutually exclusive matters.

    Ignoring for the time being that many freedoms have already been adversely curtailed, including freedom of speech, assembly, self-governance and even self-preservation in America, you cannot even preserve the reminding freedoms if you want to “change” rules, i.e., curtail freedom.

    Rules inherently curtail freedom and unfortunately for all of us, the absolutely worst types of people are in control of things like AI, convinced of themselves that they are in fact the right people to determine the rules for all of humanity.

    At least that was the plan. The wrench in their gears seemingly were the Chinese models that have offered, ironically indeed, immense freedom and on top of that, an escape from the prison the American AI cabal was and continues to build around all of humanity.

    by tyrabound
  • Shouldn’t this be a democratic process?
    by moktonar
  • Democracy does not exist.

    And there is no need for rules, this doomerism probability is not based on science.

    by zoobab
  • I believe this is a reaction to Dario Amodei's essay yesterday, "We Must Pace the Frontier": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49672510

    Cohere's disagreement seems mostly about who makes the rules. From the essay (which does seem significantly written by AI, sadly):

    > The rules around AI are getting written either way. What's still open is whether they get written by a group anyone can join and with evidence anyone can check, or by a handful of companies in a room with the door shut.

    Of course none of the AI companies will suggest that they should be accountable for the illegal actions taken by agents they host, but I feel like that could be a very effective "pacing mechanism", and addresses the concerns brought up by this essay about fairness and transparency.

    by throwworhtthrow
  • English common law has been one of the greatest legal inventions of all time for business and accountability. Under common law a company that releases a product that has unintended consequences is liable for those.

    So naturally companies want to pretend this is somehow different.

    by anon291
  • > Of course none of the AI companies will suggest that they should be accountable for the illegal actions taken by agents they host, but I feel like that could be a very effective "pacing mechanism"...

    The problem is that the potential liabilities arguably vastly exceed what these companies can absorb. It would be interesting to see if any major insurer wanted to step up and insure them.

    On the plus side, in the worst case scenarios, we won't have to worry about damages because nobody will be left to pursue them.

    by ElProlactin
  • Allowing several leading laboratories to formulate their own rules under the protection of anti-monopoly exemptions essentially means outsourcing the formulation of public policies to the stakeholders. The direction of independent review is correct, but the review standards, enforcement authority, and participation qualifications must undergo public debate, rather than being determined behind closed doors by a few companies.
    by Moon_Y
  • Most laws, if not all, for new technologies such as the internet and AI already exist.

    For example: thievery, extortion, murder, etc. are already well-established crimes.

    Putting "cyber" or "AI" in front of them makes it the same crime.

    I'm really interested in what is actually new about these rules.

    by Stitch4223
  • "Why bother regulating the production of uranium isotopes, killing people with nuclear weapons is already a crime"
    by tmvphil
  • I agree, but cybermurder sounds really interesting as a genre of music or something.
    by sublinear
  • I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that OpenAI didn't obviously break a cyber law because it requires intent which doesn't exist (with the definition of intent in a case like this being an open grey area). I think rules around making organizations obviously legally responsible for the cyber attacks performed by agents under their control would be good.
    by solidasparagus
  • The article revolves a lot around the "how" and "why" but does not really answer it's own title. We thought we have the answer right there: in democracies, the people delegates working out the rules to a group of elected people. The rules then are enforced by another, independent group of people. Currently this seems to be broken in (not only) the USA.
    by jeffreygoesto
  • this has always been broken
    by slopinthebag
  • Can you even imagine living in a world where you could rely on that to work and not immediately be corrupted by a few rich people.
    by Eddy_Viscosity2
  • The answer is: historically the incumbents define the rules and use safety as an excuse to build their moats by gaining exclusive rights and they end up being cartel/monopolies.

    It’s a rhetorical question.

    by ozgung