This whole area is such a fascinating series of knots to untangle. Because like... I think the potential dangers of this kind of technology if left unchecked are pretty self-evident. But at the...
This whole area is such a fascinating series of knots to untangle. Because like... I think the potential dangers of this kind of technology if left unchecked are pretty self-evident. But at the same time, the field is already so "arcane" for lack of a better word, and still advancing so rapidly on top of that, that it would be difficult to trust most lawmakers to keep enough of a pulse on the field to be able to legislate it responsibly in the first place. From the information in this article, this first step doesn't seem too controversial and I can't foresee any major issues with it. In general, though, I could easily see more well-meaning bills being drafted that either completely miss the point entirely and don't do anything useful, and/or that misunderstand the technology in really fundamental ways and make it near-impossible to comply with or stifle development much more broadly than intended. Will be an interesting space to watch closely, that's for sure.
My opinion is that any regulation is going to miss the mark entirely because the people creating the regulations are not the people doing the research. On top of that, you can't stop scientific...
My opinion is that any regulation is going to miss the mark entirely because the people creating the regulations are not the people doing the research. On top of that, you can't stop scientific advancement like this. The tech will move faster than the regulations ever could.
In all likelihood, yes. To be honest, though, I'm not sure which scares me more - the idea of legislation being too toothless, or too overly aggressive. I do not trust corporations with a heavy...
In all likelihood, yes. To be honest, though, I'm not sure which scares me more - the idea of legislation being too toothless, or too overly aggressive. I do not trust corporations with a heavy profit incentive to deploy this kind of increasingly advanced technology responsibly. As much as I hate the idea of artificially limiting advancement by legislating some things out of existence with too broad a brush... maybe it would be better to err on that side anyway in the short term, until we can better draw up a plan for how to move forward with all this in ways that actually benefit society at large. I don't think anyone can fully predict all the crazy knock-on effects this stuff will have, and without proper guard rails, I could easily see us looking back at this stage of development in 5 or 10 years and wishing we had done more to divert the train before it was barreling ahead at top speed.
As long as regulations target how a technology is used, they should be able to be effective. If I can't use facial recognition in Europe, then that's a pretty simple to enforce law. If using an AI...
As long as regulations target how a technology is used, they should be able to be effective. If I can't use facial recognition in Europe, then that's a pretty simple to enforce law. If using an AI means I have to disclose certain information about the AI to someone, again that's pretty simple to enforce.
Trying to regulate which type of AIs are created is going to be borderline impossible because of open source groups that can work on websites hosted in other countries, and companies can likewise move their AI divisions around a bit.
But as long as the regulations are focused on the end use and not the development there's no reason they wouldn't be effective
Summary: The European Union took an important step on Wednesday toward passing what would be one of the first major laws to regulate artificial intelligence, a potential model for policymakers...
Summary:
The European Union took an important step on Wednesday toward passing what would be one of the first major laws to regulate artificial intelligence, a potential model for policymakers around the world as they grapple with how to put guardrails on the rapidly developing technology. From a report:
The European Parliament, a main legislative branch of the E.U., passed a draft law known as the A.I. Act, which would put new restrictions on what are seen as the technology's riskiest uses. It would severely curtail uses of facial recognition software, while requiring makers of A.I. systems like the ChatGPT chatbot to disclose more about the data used to create their programs. The vote is one step in a longer process. A final version of the law is not expected to be passed until later this year.
The European Union is further along than the United States and other large Western governments in regulating A.I. The 27-nation bloc has debated the topic for more than two years, and the issue took on new urgency after last year's release of ChatGPT, which intensified concerns about the technology's potential effects on employment and society. Policymakers everywhere from Washington to Beijing are now racing to control an evolving technology that is alarming even some of its earliest creators. In the United States, the White House has released policy ideas that includes rules for testing A.I. systems before they are publicly available and protecting privacy rights. In China, draft rules unveiled in April would require makers of chatbots to adhere to the country's strict censorship rules. Beijing is also taking more control over the ways makers of A.I. systems use data.
This whole area is such a fascinating series of knots to untangle. Because like... I think the potential dangers of this kind of technology if left unchecked are pretty self-evident. But at the same time, the field is already so "arcane" for lack of a better word, and still advancing so rapidly on top of that, that it would be difficult to trust most lawmakers to keep enough of a pulse on the field to be able to legislate it responsibly in the first place. From the information in this article, this first step doesn't seem too controversial and I can't foresee any major issues with it. In general, though, I could easily see more well-meaning bills being drafted that either completely miss the point entirely and don't do anything useful, and/or that misunderstand the technology in really fundamental ways and make it near-impossible to comply with or stifle development much more broadly than intended. Will be an interesting space to watch closely, that's for sure.
My opinion is that any regulation is going to miss the mark entirely because the people creating the regulations are not the people doing the research. On top of that, you can't stop scientific advancement like this. The tech will move faster than the regulations ever could.
In all likelihood, yes. To be honest, though, I'm not sure which scares me more - the idea of legislation being too toothless, or too overly aggressive. I do not trust corporations with a heavy profit incentive to deploy this kind of increasingly advanced technology responsibly. As much as I hate the idea of artificially limiting advancement by legislating some things out of existence with too broad a brush... maybe it would be better to err on that side anyway in the short term, until we can better draw up a plan for how to move forward with all this in ways that actually benefit society at large. I don't think anyone can fully predict all the crazy knock-on effects this stuff will have, and without proper guard rails, I could easily see us looking back at this stage of development in 5 or 10 years and wishing we had done more to divert the train before it was barreling ahead at top speed.
As long as regulations target how a technology is used, they should be able to be effective. If I can't use facial recognition in Europe, then that's a pretty simple to enforce law. If using an AI means I have to disclose certain information about the AI to someone, again that's pretty simple to enforce.
Trying to regulate which type of AIs are created is going to be borderline impossible because of open source groups that can work on websites hosted in other countries, and companies can likewise move their AI divisions around a bit.
But as long as the regulations are focused on the end use and not the development there's no reason they wouldn't be effective
Summary:
The European Union took an important step on Wednesday toward passing what would be one of the first major laws to regulate artificial intelligence, a potential model for policymakers around the world as they grapple with how to put guardrails on the rapidly developing technology. From a report:
The European Parliament, a main legislative branch of the E.U., passed a draft law known as the A.I. Act, which would put new restrictions on what are seen as the technology's riskiest uses. It would severely curtail uses of facial recognition software, while requiring makers of A.I. systems like the ChatGPT chatbot to disclose more about the data used to create their programs. The vote is one step in a longer process. A final version of the law is not expected to be passed until later this year.
The European Union is further along than the United States and other large Western governments in regulating A.I. The 27-nation bloc has debated the topic for more than two years, and the issue took on new urgency after last year's release of ChatGPT, which intensified concerns about the technology's potential effects on employment and society. Policymakers everywhere from Washington to Beijing are now racing to control an evolving technology that is alarming even some of its earliest creators. In the United States, the White House has released policy ideas that includes rules for testing A.I. systems before they are publicly available and protecting privacy rights. In China, draft rules unveiled in April would require makers of chatbots to adhere to the country's strict censorship rules. Beijing is also taking more control over the ways makers of A.I. systems use data.