I hope the government actually lays down some framework for regulation and this doesn't just turn into an impromptu investor meeting. Whenever tech CEOs are brought in to talk about tech with our...
I hope the government actually lays down some framework for regulation and this doesn't just turn into an impromptu investor meeting. Whenever tech CEOs are brought in to talk about tech with our representatives, it never seems beneficial to the public at large.
I supremely doubt it. Every form of automating has now rebranded as ai. Got a robot that moves materials? Ai. An algorithm that uses sales data to predict trends? Ai. Akinator style database...
I supremely doubt it. Every form of automating has now rebranded as ai.
Got a robot that moves materials? Ai.
An algorithm that uses sales data to predict trends? Ai.
Akinator style database checks? Ai.
There is no way a useful discussion is occurring here
Those examples sound like AI to me. At least according the definitions I'm familiar with. I don't think there's a very well-defined definition everyone can agree on. For some people, it's when a...
Those examples sound like AI to me. At least according the definitions I'm familiar with. I don't think there's a very well-defined definition everyone can agree on. For some people, it's when a computer solves a problem we think is hard, but as technology develops, the problems we think are hard change over time as well.
I think it's better that legislators show an interest in understanding the issue, as opposed to showing no interest. These kinds of events are more performative than practical, but maybe they're useful demonstrations for the public to get on board with new AI-related legislation as well.
Well they weren't classified such 15+ years ago. We've had robots that move things around since the 60's, and predictive/trend math LONG before that. Akinator is the most recent example in 2007....
Those examples sound like AI to me.
Well they weren't classified such 15+ years ago. We've had robots that move things around since the 60's, and predictive/trend math LONG before that. Akinator is the most recent example in 2007.
None of it is Machine Learning, which is generally what qualifies as "AI" by any reasonable standard, but since it's the hot new marketing term, math equations we've had for centuries are being repackages as "AI algorithms".
According to whom? Can you point me to any references on what a reasonable standard would be? Academic definitions of AI that I've seen don't require machine learning, just any system that does...
they weren't classified such 15+ years ago
Machine Learning, which is generally what qualifies as "AI" by any reasonable standard
According to whom? Can you point me to any references on what a reasonable standard would be? Academic definitions of AI that I've seen don't require machine learning, just any system that does something human-like or rational. As far as I know, machine learning might also be difficult to define precisely. I think this subject is one reason why conversations need to be had. What kinds of things would fall under the scope of any suggested legislation? Would some legislation about AI technically apply to the PID controller in your electric kettle? How do you even define AI or ML in a way that will not cause some kind of trouble? Would there be any unintended effects on the industry, such as with sesame allergy laws?
There’s a briefing from the Congressional Research Service that was released about a month ago and gives a decent view of how they’re looking at it. The first page touches on your question about...
There’s a briefing from the Congressional Research Service that was released about a month ago and gives a decent view of how they’re looking at it.
The first page touches on your question about definitions: to paraphrase very heavily, I’d describe the intro as “Yeah, the term AI has been thrown around since the 50s, but the reason we’re talking about it now is because ML models exploded in 2023”.
As for unintended consequences… Yeah, that’s probably going to be an issue. It’d be an issue if a group of well educated experts were approaching the question in good faith, so I hate to think what’ll happen when it’s being hashed out by a group that contains more than its share of geriatric technophobes, billionaires with heavily vested interests, and even a few who fall into both of those camps.
I'm parroting something I heard on NPR regarding this meeting, but I doubt it. Historically, technology has always advanced rapidly compared to legislation, there is a huge lack of general...
I hope the government actually lays down some framework for regulation
I'm parroting something I heard on NPR regarding this meeting, but I doubt it. Historically, technology has always advanced rapidly compared to legislation, there is a huge lack of general technological expertise and experience on the hill, and we're talking about a bitterly-divided Congress. I would greatly enjoy being wrong though, but hearing it laid out in such a manner doesn't give me much optimism.
I hope the government actually lays down some framework for regulation and this doesn't just turn into an impromptu investor meeting. Whenever tech CEOs are brought in to talk about tech with our representatives, it never seems beneficial to the public at large.
I supremely doubt it. Every form of automating has now rebranded as ai.
Got a robot that moves materials? Ai.
An algorithm that uses sales data to predict trends? Ai.
Akinator style database checks? Ai.
There is no way a useful discussion is occurring here
Those examples sound like AI to me. At least according the definitions I'm familiar with. I don't think there's a very well-defined definition everyone can agree on. For some people, it's when a computer solves a problem we think is hard, but as technology develops, the problems we think are hard change over time as well.
I think it's better that legislators show an interest in understanding the issue, as opposed to showing no interest. These kinds of events are more performative than practical, but maybe they're useful demonstrations for the public to get on board with new AI-related legislation as well.
Well they weren't classified such 15+ years ago. We've had robots that move things around since the 60's, and predictive/trend math LONG before that. Akinator is the most recent example in 2007.
None of it is Machine Learning, which is generally what qualifies as "AI" by any reasonable standard, but since it's the hot new marketing term, math equations we've had for centuries are being repackages as "AI algorithms".
According to whom? Can you point me to any references on what a reasonable standard would be? Academic definitions of AI that I've seen don't require machine learning, just any system that does something human-like or rational. As far as I know, machine learning might also be difficult to define precisely. I think this subject is one reason why conversations need to be had. What kinds of things would fall under the scope of any suggested legislation? Would some legislation about AI technically apply to the PID controller in your electric kettle? How do you even define AI or ML in a way that will not cause some kind of trouble? Would there be any unintended effects on the industry, such as with sesame allergy laws?
There’s a briefing from the Congressional Research Service that was released about a month ago and gives a decent view of how they’re looking at it.
The first page touches on your question about definitions: to paraphrase very heavily, I’d describe the intro as “Yeah, the term AI has been thrown around since the 50s, but the reason we’re talking about it now is because ML models exploded in 2023”.
As for unintended consequences… Yeah, that’s probably going to be an issue. It’d be an issue if a group of well educated experts were approaching the question in good faith, so I hate to think what’ll happen when it’s being hashed out by a group that contains more than its share of geriatric technophobes, billionaires with heavily vested interests, and even a few who fall into both of those camps.
I'm parroting something I heard on NPR regarding this meeting, but I doubt it. Historically, technology has always advanced rapidly compared to legislation, there is a huge lack of general technological expertise and experience on the hill, and we're talking about a bitterly-divided Congress. I would greatly enjoy being wrong though, but hearing it laid out in such a manner doesn't give me much optimism.