warned that liability for mass casualties caused by AI will destroy the industry
Get real, man!
If liability really can destroy an industry, then this industry should never have existed in the first place.
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
155 points (94.3% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
2880 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
When you move fast and break things, but then have to pay to fix the things you broke π₯Ί
However I dislike this, in some sense we (as in Web users) started this idea that tech should be free from liability.
Then vultures came and try to both make it all work for them and at the same time be free from liability.
tech should be free from liability.
I call that a childish idea.
Yeah, I call everything absolute a childish idea.
Just like everything else, laws work when there is an alternative. When that ends, they are abused more and more by bad people.
Just like the letter I got yesterday from an ISP I haven't done business with in 4 years, letting me know my birthdate and SSN were compromised. Why did they even maintain it if they didn't have a need for it? Also, why did an ISP need that in the first place...
They offered 1 year of credit monitoring. Lol. I'll wait for the class action.
Or...just don't use AI.
These dumb shits act like it's enriching people's lives. Instead, it's just making a very specific group of rich people more wealthy.
It's a fleecing of suckers who think it's some useful tool to eliminate human workers that cost money.
It's a positive that it removes jobs. The negative is that society can't deal with it.
it removes jobs.
They can work at the power plants then. You know, we need so many more power plants, in order to feed our Great and Hungry AI.
/s
AI execs: Our AIs are going to be so powerful. More powerful than anything. Soon they could be able to destroy humanity!
Governments: Well, then we better regulate that shit and make sure that doesn't happen...
AI execs: Nooooo! We did not mean it that way!
That's always a good sign I guess.
Anytime a fortune500 is against something by saying itβs essentially bad for business, then Iβm all for it
They've gotten smart enough to use reverse psychology on this kind of thing.
This very much feels like βOnly please, Brer Fox, please donβt throw me into the briar patch.β
Sounds like this is will foss models. This is why all the bug tech companies are pushing ai dangerous narrative they gonna legislate away our freedom for moss models to keep hold of a monopoly. This is how liberty dies with thunderous applause.
legislation in the works that mandates that companies that spend more than $100 million on training a βfrontier modelβ in AI β like the in-progress GPT-5 β do safety testing. Otherwise, they would be liable if their AI system leads to a βmass casualty eventβ or more than $500 million in damages in a single incident or set of closely linked incidents.
Are those models made by companies that would be affected based on the conditions above?
All models are very costly regardless of open source or closed source, but I'm not sure any current model reaches that high. The 100$ million seems to only applies to the cost of computing and not of buying the actual cards.
The legislation is essentially asking that it can't make nukes or do massive hacking attacking and only asking it of people that definitely have the money to make sure.
It's actually very level headed compared to what most are pushing for. I can't even see it affect current gen AI, which are mostly harmless anyways.
I believe some may reach that and it does set a significant limit on capability of foss.
Yup, exactly. The only regulation I'd be in favor of for AI is this: if it was trained on data which can be accessed by or was posted by the public, it must be freely available, such that if anything in the training data was posted online in a way anyone can see, then then I have free access to tge AI too.
Basically any other regulation, even if the companies whine publicly, is actually one that benefits them by raising the barrier of entry and making it more expensive for small actors to create AI tools.
Do foss models really matter? I'm pro foss and think proprietary software should be banned but these weights are essentially a compiled program, we have no idea what they do
Some are foss in the sence its free. But u do have a point.
This all sounds smart to me. I'll vote for it given the chance.
If it's the same one from a few months ago, the wording is so vague that only huge companies with legal departments will be able to navigate the compliance maze they've set up.
what enriches lives:
- solving world hunger
- doing the taxes and other boring stuff
- translation
- replacing corrupt governments
- cheaper living
what we use AI for instead:
- making society, artists, already poor people poorer
- making life more complicated thanks to increased joblessness
- causing more polarisation and conflict
- helping corrupt governments
- more expensive living
why invent an AI that eats ice cream for you when instead, it should do the dishes and pass the butter?
βfrontier modelβ in AI β like the in-progress GPT-5 β do safety testing. Otherwise, they would be liable if their AI system leads to a βmass casualty eventβ or more than $500 million in damages in a single incident or set of closely linked incidents.
If your Ai takes over the world and nukes half of it, you will have to pay a fine.
Why is she claiming that the bill is about liability?