[HN Gopher] The Commission for Stopping Further Improvements
___________________________________________________________________
The Commission for Stopping Further Improvements
Author : feross
Score : 71 points
Date : 2023-04-21 17:47 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (rootsofprogress.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (rootsofprogress.org)
| carls wrote:
| It seems to me that there's a natural tension in emerging fields
| of science and engineering between establishing clear guidelines
| and regulations early on to minimize harms, or instead allowing
| practitioners to experiment, tinker, build and create outcomes
| that may be potentially harmful.
|
| What are some frameworks for how to think about navigating this
| tension in emerging scientific or engineering fields?
|
| Some ones I'm mulling over:
|
| 1. Rate of innovation: In rapidly evolving fields, imposing
| strict regulations too early can hinder innovation and progress.
| In such cases, it might be better to minimize restrictions early
| on to allow practitioners to explore new ideas. Then, as the
| field matures, regulations and standards can be gradually
| introduced.
|
| 2. Adaptive regulation: Implement a flexible regulatory framework
| that can be updated as new information becomes available.
|
| 3. Self-regulation: In some cases, maybe we should expect and
| encourage the industry to use self-regulation via developing
| guidelines and codes of conduct. This may be one way to try and
| strike a balance between responsible innovation while minimizing
| bureaucratic obstacles.
|
| What do others think?
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| I think if I want to write some software, and I have the
| knowledge and compute power to do what I want, then I really
| don't care whether you or some authoritarian committee tells me
| I'm allowed to run my software. I'm going to do it anyway.
| nine_k wrote:
| Now think of synthesizing and distributing novel chemical
| compounds, or using novel medical devices.
| zeteo wrote:
| Brunel was probably right that the work of the commission would
| be detrimental to the rate of innovation. But is that the only
| thing that matters? We would probably get a faster rate of
| innovation in personal transportation if we allowed any
| unlicensed vehicles to use the public highways at any speed. But
| there would be a terrible cost to pay in terms of lives lost or
| ruined. It doesn't sound like the commission was planning to
| forbid any and all usage of cast iron, just not in places where
| public safety was at risk. An innovative engineer could always
| build a novel cast iron bridge in a test location and produce
| some dramatic demonstration of its strength and reliability that
| didn't involve running fully loaded passenger trains over it. The
| trade-off between the rate of innovation and the casualty rate
| does not need to be chosen at either of the extremes.
| mannykannot wrote:
| While some counter-examples may be found, subsequent events have
| generally repudiated Brunel's concerns.
| mnd999 wrote:
| > The interpretation of Brunel's opinions, and applicability to
| today, are left to the reader
|
| I don't think Brunel would have much liked SOC2.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Interesting, and I guess this applies to plenty of modern
| standards (e.g. my work won't use wireguard because it isn't
| approved by some nonsense security standards.
|
| But on the other hand I don't think the sensible solution is to
| leave everything unregulated! I am very glad that building
| regulations exist!
| jasoncrawford wrote:
| I think regulations can work when they enforce very well-
| supported, long-established best practices, such that if you
| don't do them it amounts to negligence.
|
| They might also work better if they say "you can't do it _that_
| way, which is known to be unsafe," as opposed to "you must do
| it _this_ way, which is the only safe thing."
|
| Note also that regulatory standards are not the only mechanism
| in the law to create safety. Liability law can be very
| effective at creating safety, by giving the right incentives to
| the right parties, but liability law doesn't tell anyone what
| to do--only what will happen to you if you cause harm.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| Yeah, this "we can't build anymore" shit is _often_ just people
| complaining about not being able to externalize costs that they
| don't want to pay for.
| zwieback wrote:
| Agreed, it's a fine anecdote but easy to draw the wrong
| conclusion of "rules hamper progress and counterproductive". I
| think the main challenge is to attract the right talent to the
| rule-making body.
| 364758483 wrote:
| This is the exact direction I think we should reshape
| political systems. Perhaps even make empowering experts the
| main point. Too much is legislated and enforced by people who
| are overly self-interested or out of touch. It's a huge
| missed opportunity that experts are forced to watch
| representatives fumble around or make wrong decisions.
|
| A long those lines, governance power should not require being
| a celebrity either.
|
| Applying this post to the topic of AI alignment, I'd like a
| democratic option for large entitlements of tax funds to be
| applied as Yudkowsky sees fit, if enough people vote to
| appoint him as AI Minister, and vote to give him governance
| teeth against big tech and the thousands of startups driving
| Moloch via the standard economic paradigm.
| m463 wrote:
| There must be ways to write regulations in meaningful ways.
| Like a train bridge must meet specification a, b and c and pass
| tests d, e and f, instead of saying it must be made of wrought
| iron.
| eximius wrote:
| So, 'update regulations when new information comes to light'?
|
| It is frustrating that common action often precludes such common
| sense sentiments due to the friction of interests or bad actors.
| dgs_sgd wrote:
| Ah, but regulatory updates come at a rate much much slower than
| new information and innovation. For example, the main
| securities law in the US was written 90 years ago (Securities
| Act of 1933).
| JackFr wrote:
| The Securities Act of 1933 is a tremendously successful law.
|
| (And it's been amended a half dozen times so it's not really
| trapped in amber.)
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Much like a Commission for Stopping Further Improvements, a
| Coalition for Stopping Further Regulation is equally short-
| sighted.
|
| Brunel's contention that structural engineers should be qualified
| to make their own decisions unencumbered by regulation makes
| sense on the face of it. But then, what qualifies a structural
| engineer? Licensing, a product of regulation.
|
| Like many things, regulation is, in isolation, neutral. It can
| serve the common good, or it can serve the interests of an
| unrepresentative cabal; it can be forward-looking and adaptable,
| or it can be hastily drafted by unqualified functionaries. Why
| couldn't the regulators in Brunel's day have carved out an open-
| ended "unless otherwise demonstrated" around the use of iron
| structural members?
| its_ethan wrote:
| It feels like you answered your own question in a way..
|
| "Why couldn't the regulators in Brunel's day have carved out an
| open-ended "unless otherwise demonstrated" around the use of
| iron structural members?"
|
| The answer is partly in your statement: "regulation is, in
| isolation, neutral." Looking around at regulatory/ bureaucratic
| bodies, "in isolation" is rarely (never?) achieved. Satisfying
| ambiguous "unless otherwise demonstrated"-esque clauses that
| are enforced by unelected paper pushers is very much part of
| Brunel's concern.
| flybrand wrote:
| I feel like we're living in the age of an unidentified,
| "Committee to Stop Maintenance of Civil Infrastructue."
| krisoft wrote:
| But what is Brunel's solution to the underlying problem? A bridge
| has fallen down. Presumably the engineers who designed it had no
| murderous intent. They tried their best to make a solid bridge.
| Do we just let engineers build bridges however they please and
| then be angry if they fall down? How is that going to help
| anybody?
| netbioserror wrote:
| In economics, the closest analogy might be economic substitutes.
| Who was to predict that electricity would displace oil lamps but
| the electric pioneers? The car to replace the horse-drawn
| carriage? Internal combustion to replace steam? The standard
| shipping container to replace irregular loading? Integrated
| circuits to replace mazes of wires and vacuum tubes? Spreadsheets
| to replace calculation workers? The Internet to quite nearly
| replace all uses of technical books? Government planners are not
| these pioneers and can never make universally applicable rules
| which hold their fairness into an unknowable future.
| narrator wrote:
| The worst outcome is when government promotes and protects bad
| science for ideological reasons. The classic examples being
| Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union and Mao's terrible ideas during
| The Great Leap Forward and subsequent famine.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-21 23:00 UTC)