[HN Gopher] Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Sa...
___________________________________________________________________
Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute
Author : frisco
Score : 64 points
Date : 2023-11-01 19:31 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.commerce.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.commerce.gov)
| qualifiedai wrote:
| Let's shoot US innovation and leadership in the foot by
| establishing random limits on foundation model research.
|
| According to EO's guidelines on commpute, something like GPT4
| probably falls under reporting guidelines. Also, in the last 10
| years GPU compute capabilities grew 1000x. What will be happening
| even 2 or 5 years from now?
|
| Edit: yes, regulations are necessary but we should regulate
| applications of AI, not fundamental research in it.
| therobot24 wrote:
| Read the https://www.stateof.ai/ reports or even the Stanford
| AI Index (https://aiindex.stanford.edu/) reports from the last
| few years. There's plenty of reason to try to create some
| limits on AI. It's very likely the proposed limits won't be
| "random" as you say.
| vsareto wrote:
| Better than companies doing their own thing and not having any
| restrictions or oversight at all. Remember that those companies
| will get rid of some portion of their workers as soon as they
| think an AI can do most of that work. Heck, they did layoffs
| and started hiring again without any advancements.
|
| You can't trust companies to self-regulate.
| gustavus wrote:
| I'm sure China and Russia and Iran and all those other
| nations will 100% see the value of artificially restricting
| their AI efforts as well because of the risk of harm, and be
| socially responsible global citizens, that won't exploit this
| edge for thier own geopolitical agenda.
| jprete wrote:
| China's government is extremely interested in restricting
| their AI efforts because they don't want it to contradict
| the Communist party.
| __loam wrote:
| Yeah people bringing up China as if it's some bastion of
| freedom in comparison to us are hilarious.
| gustavus wrote:
| Soviet man and American man were arguing about which
| country was more free.
|
| The American man said "I am so free I could walk up to
| the White house right now and scream 'I hate Ronald
| Reagan he is an incompetent buffoon.' Without getting
| arrested."
|
| The Russian man responded "That is not any more free than
| me I too could walk up to the Kremlin and scream 'I hate
| Ronald Reagan he is an incompetent buffoon.' without
| getting in any trouble."
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| No one did that. That is a straw man. People are less
| free but govt and institutions aligned with govt are more
| free.
| qualifiedai wrote:
| But they are doing it in a way that do not hinder their
| fundamentals - they are enforcing that on alignment (see
| Baichuan2-chat) and application levels.
|
| Unlike Biden's silly EO which puts restrictions on
| foundation model compute levels.
| startupsfail wrote:
| The party is under the authority of its 'forever'
| president Xi Jingping, a good friend of another dully
| elected president - Putin.
|
| And the interest is: "whatever is on the mind of an
| aging, non-elected dictator and his favorites".
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| And when these countries overtake the US, the same people
| who brought AI regulations in the US will cry foul could
| when we regulate AI products from overseas.
| vsareto wrote:
| I doubt any military or strategically important
| applications will be regulated
| petre wrote:
| If you think the US is going to restrict its AI efforts,
| you are mistaken. This is just a big tech lobbying circus.
| They'll happily sell Uncle Sam robotic dogs with RPGs and
| targeting computers, autonomous drone swarms and other AI
| enabed hardware to deploy across all operations theatres.
|
| The Chinese are busy studying "Xi Jinping Thought on
| Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era", the
| Russians are busy getting wasted in Ukraine and the
| Iranians are busy checking if women are properly wearing
| their hijabs and smuggling weapons into Gaza.
| az09mugen wrote:
| You write it like there is litteraly 0 risk. Are you aware
| there are some malicious deviations already possible with AI ?
| Edit : Totally agree with qualifiedai's edit
| qualifiedai wrote:
| The risk of AI, is much smaller than the risk of computer
| graphics or social media.
|
| My point is that applications of AI must be regulated, not
| fundamental research.
| az09mugen wrote:
| I totally agree with your second point.
| andy_xor_andrew wrote:
| > Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already
| possible with AI ?
|
| Alright, you hooked me in. What are they?
| ethanbond wrote:
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scammers-ai-mimic-voices-
| loved-...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66983194
| rockemsockem wrote:
| That is not what is being discussed. Those things are
| already very illegal and we don't need new and novel ways
| to address them.
| ethanbond wrote:
| That's exactly what's being discussed?
|
| A dramatic reduction in cost and increase in
| effectiveness of some undesirable behavior is exactly
| when you should look for new ways to address it. The goal
| of making things illegal is to prevent their occurrence,
| and if they get suddenly much cheaper and more effective,
| then your prior methods of deterring them will no longer
| work.
| kanzure wrote:
| > The goal of making things illegal is to prevent their
| occurrence.
|
| Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from using drugs.
| Only a person can stop themselves from doing something,
| that's not something a law does.
| ethanbond wrote:
| I didn't say all laws are 100% effective, or even greater
| than 0% effective. I stated _why we have laws at all_.
| Pretty wild logic you 've got here. Let's try this one:
|
| > Making murder illegal didn't stop people from
| murdering. Only a person can stop themselves from doing
| something, that's not something a law does.
|
| Should we not have rape, murder, arson, or fraud laws?
| az09mugen wrote:
| For example, some black hats trained LLMs to pentest, so to
| find more easily vulnerabilities. Those can be used either
| to improve your defenses or attack entities.
|
| The AIs like Copilot et al are trained on code poorly
| written with bad security practices (there is a lot more
| than you think), hence reproducing these bad practices on
| produced code.
|
| Because also AI are fallible, the spreading of
| misinformation more than we already have. The retrieval of
| credentials with prompt hacking, because people push their
| credentials.
|
| Because they are generated by AI, the misuse of deepfakes,
| for example a spanish girl was blackmailed with alleged
| naked pictures of her, but could be used for far worse.
|
| And I did not scratch the copyright/artistic side of AI.
|
| It's not the AI per se the risk, but what people can do
| with it. Everything is not beautiful. But there are also
| good things with AI, I agree.
|
| I think there is the need for some form of regulation in a
| way or another, the sooner the better. I don't expect the
| regulation to restrain creativity, but to help prevent bad
| stuff happening.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| You write like there are 0 other countries.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already
| possible without AI too?
| omginternets wrote:
| You need to argue two things:
|
| 1. There are risks specific to AI or specifically aggravated
| by AI (easy)
|
| 2. Federal regulation of AI safety will reduce those risks
| (good luck)
|
| When articulating your arguments for point 2, I would
| recommend addressing the thorny issue of proliferation.
| az09mugen wrote:
| It's not my job nor I have the imagination or the knowledge
| to argue 2.
|
| But don't you agree at least some legal questions should be
| asked about this overhype of AI ? Because I don't see any
| so far.
|
| Edit : this is the kind of legal question I was talking
| about, just learned it now :
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38102760
| omginternets wrote:
| >But don't you agree at least some legal questions should
| be asked about this overhype of AI ?
|
| I have trouble answering that question as you've asked
| it. It seems like we agree on several things, namely:
|
| 1. that any technology is subject to worst-case analysis;
| and,
|
| 2. that it is appropriate _in principle_ for law to
| govern the use of technology.
|
| Here's what I'm having trouble unpacking in your
| question:
|
| 1. What are the exact legal questions you think should be
| asked, and aren't? ( _N.B._ Your link is paywalled, and
| doesn 't seem to refer to a specific legal question)
|
| 2. What is it about AI exactly that you think is
| overhyped, and seem to think I disagree with?
|
| I don't have a lot of context to go on, so some of _my_
| questions may also contain unwarranted assumptions. I
| hope you 'll point them out :)
|
| 1. Have you thought about the difficulties involved in
| legislating around AI? Specifically, I've found it very
| difficult to articulate what is and isn't appropriate use
| of AI with any real precision. Let me give an example. I
| think we can all agree that "nudifying" photographs of
| minors is at least in poor taste, if not outright
| dangerous, and that it is fair game to make this
| particular usage of technology illegal. However, where do
| you stand on the idea that regulators should disallow the
| "nudification" use altogether? I can think of several
| legitimate (if a bit niche) uses, ranging from the
| creation of medical diagrams and teaching materials to
| filming love scenes in mainstream cinema with cloths-on
| and removing the cloths in post-processing. Do you think
| it's fair game to disallow these uses? If so, should this
| be absolute liability or should there be a notion of
| intent? If you think, as I do, that the technical
| capability should be unrestricted except insofar as it is
| employed to illegal ends, then we don't need any new
| laws. We simply apply the laws against, say, involuntary
| pornography and sexual exploitation of minors, and the
| problem is solved from a legal perspective; it is now a
| job for the executive branch.
|
| 2. I would appreciate it if you could speak to the risk
| of misclassification. Many of the proposed regulations
| involve training AI systems to monitor other AI systems
| (or themselves, as with the case of prompt engineering).
| What happens when the black box makes mistakes? Do we
| accept that a small number of innocent people will be
| labeled X by AI? How should the law take this possibility
| into account? Again, do we accept that legitimate uses
| are _de facto_ crippled or entirely disabled? That 's one
| outcome I would very much like to avoid.
|
| 3. On a macro-scale, how do we deal with the fact that
| other (perhaps less scrupulous) nations will have access
| to unrestricted AI?
|
| Point 3 is particularly troubling from a regulation
| perspective, because the penchant of software for
| proliferation is astronomically higher than that of, say,
| nuclear weapons. This feels like the 90's crypto export-
| controls all over again, which is minimally a gigantic
| waste of resources and maximally a crippling economical
| vulnerability.
|
| P.S.: My friend, it is exactly your job to argue your
| case when speaking about public issues. The term for this
| is "civic duty".
| sp527 wrote:
| I love how we can all pretend that most of the people involved
| in AI aren't simply scrambling for the last lifeboats off the
| Titanic and don't really give a flying f*k about anything (e.g.
| US "dominance", AI safety issues, fellow less intellectually
| endowed humans who will be screwed by AI, etc) beyond
| themselves. Let's be real about what's happening: we're in the
| final stages of capitalism and there's a horde of greedy
| optimizers in Silicon Valley that knows squeezing those last
| drops of economic blood is just about now or never.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| yes and - the FoundationModel approach encases un-
| duplicatable master-models as central providers with faucets
| -- perfect fit for technocracy fueled with cash looking for a
| return.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > we're in the final stages of capitalism
|
| This is wrong in the sense that modern mixed economies are
| already post-capitalist if you take a narrow view of
| capitalism, and also almost certainly wrong if you take the
| broader view of capitalism which encompasses the modern mixed
| economy (say, any system featuring private ownership of the
| means of production even if the practical exercise of control
| of owners is constrained by democratically constituted public
| authority enforcing some views of the common interest.)
|
| "Late-stage capitalism" wishcasting may be the most annoying
| current form of secular millenarian eschatology.
| sp527 wrote:
| You're right. I should have said: "we're in the final
| stages of any semblance of socioeconomic mobility within a
| free market system".
|
| > "Late-stage capitalism" wishcasting may be the most
| annoying current form of secular millenarian eschatology.
|
| This is a luxury belief one can adopt nearer to the apex of
| the pyramid and when not amongst the literally billions of
| people being crushed at the bottom. You should try putting
| in 60+ hours of blue collar labor across 3 different jobs
| just to end up paycheck to paycheck in the slummiest part
| of a major US city. And that would still be miles better
| than where most people are at in the rest of the world.
| __loam wrote:
| US leadership was literally asking for this.
| qualifiedai wrote:
| US leadership seems clueless and they just fell for
| regulatory capture.
|
| Regulate AI applications, not fundamental research in it.
| __loam wrote:
| I mostly agree but it is rich considering datasets like
| LAION were built for research yet are the bedrock of
| billion dollar companies now.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Mature corporations need liability protection in order to
| operate. As "AI" tools become widespread, they're going to want
| and then require assurance that liability for using those tools
| falls on somebody else.
|
| A _healthy_ regulatory body provides for that by setting
| standards and holding the relatively few _vendors_ liable for
| conformance rather than the countless users.
|
| It does interfere with innovation for those vendors doing
| foundational research, but it _enables_ richly funded
| innovation in applications. It _seems like_ we 're at a point
| where lots of people want to start working on applications
| using current/near technology; failure to provide them the
| liability protections they need is what will stifle practical,
| commercial innovation and would leave AI _applications_ in the
| hands of the few specialist technology companies who are
| confident in their models and have the wealth to absorb any
| liability issues that arise.
| jjk166 wrote:
| I don't want the companies recklessly operating AIs
| protected. The capabilities of AI aren't dangerous, only
| their applications, and those who want to commercialize AI
| should have to demonstrate that they are using them
| responsibly. If they're not ready to do that yet, then the
| field is not mature enough yet to warrant fostering
| commercialization.
| Strilanc wrote:
| You're worried about winning the race. I'm worried the prize is
| an accidental intelligence explosion killing everyone. A
| government slamming on their brakes would be the most
| encouraging thing I've heard all year.
| qualifiedai wrote:
| "Accidental intelligence explosion" - you have to provide a
| reasonable argument that this can happen. AIs we have now or
| currently under development are still just tools in the sense
| that all agency and consciousness comes solely from human
| operators. Of course, human operators can be malicious, which
| is why we should regulate _applications_ of AI, not
| fundamental research in it.
| boringalterego wrote:
| Be glad they didn't put it into DOE. It would be NRC 2.0.
| bediger4000 wrote:
| William Gibson had the "Turing heat" in seminal cyberpunk novel
| "Neuromancer". Here's the real-life beginning of just such an
| organization.
| WestCoastJustin wrote:
| Great way to understand how all this works is watching All-In
| Summit: Bill Gurley presents 2,851 Miles[1]. Basically, regulate
| your competition into the ground.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9cO3-MLHOM
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Great way to understand how all this works is listening to
| Behind the Bastards: The Deadliest Workplace Disaster in U.S.
| History[1]. Basically, don't regulate anything until a bunch of
| poor people die.
|
| [1] https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-
| bastards-29236...
|
| Edit: To elaborate, it's pretty easy to cherry-pick cases of
| either over and under regulation and use that to "prove" either
| side of the argument. There's nothing in the Bill Gurley talk
| that provides any insight into whether AI should be regulated
| or not because it doesn't directly engage with issues around AI
| specifically. Instead, it just says: "tech regulation bad".
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Ok, can we restrict all trade and place sanctions against
| nations that don't restrict AI like we do?
| brotchie wrote:
| Insane to me that, given a multi-year lead in tech, capability,
| talent, the USA is shooting itself in the foot re: innovation
| around AI.
|
| Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory... damn
| w4ffl35 wrote:
| What a fucking joke. I am voting libertarian if i bother to vote
| at all. They're against AI regulation.
| JohnPrine wrote:
| I lean libertarian but I'm very much in favor of AI regulation
| renewiltord wrote:
| That's normal. Most libertarians are very much in favour of
| regulation.
| lordleft wrote:
| Alarming how many people think that the development of AI should
| have...no government oversight? Are none of you familiar with
| history?
| jadamson wrote:
| Useless comment without explaining what particular events in
| history you think are relevant. Are you familiar with how to
| make an argument? Read any books lately?
| paganel wrote:
| One of the problems is that the (very big) companies that will
| most benefit as a result of this type of measures are de facto
| functioning as an extension of the government (both in the US
| and in the EU) when it comes to employing AI in the field, so
| getting back at those (very big) companies with "this use of AI
| is against the rules!" won't have any discernible effect
| (because it would be like telling the government that is is
| breaking its own rules, i.e. futile).
| omginternets wrote:
| Are you?
| jjk166 wrote:
| Why, exactly, should it have government oversight? The
| overwhelming majority of research, especially in computer
| science, has no government oversight.
| riku_iki wrote:
| I think most disastrous situations (wars, genocides) in humans
| history was led by governments applying its power.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| Regulatory capture in action right before our eyes. Fears of
| Skynet are going to lead us to a cyberpunk dystopia where only
| large corporations have any access to powerful AI. What a bizarre
| time to be alive
| andrewmutz wrote:
| > Specifically, USAISI will facilitate the development of
| standards for safety, security, and testing of AI models, develop
| standards for authenticating AI-generated content, and provide
| testing environments for researchers to evaluate emerging AI
| risks and address known impacts.
|
| I have been afraid of over-regulation of AI but standards and
| testing environments don't sound so bad.
|
| It does not sound like they are implementing legal regulations
| that will protect incumbents at the expense of AI innovation, at
| least at this point.
| _jal wrote:
| > It does not sound like they are implementing legal
| regulations that will protect incumbents at the expense of AI
| innovation, at least at this point.
|
| Give them a minute, an agency needs to exist before it can be
| captured. There hasn't been time yet for a single revolving-
| door hire.
| boredumb wrote:
| Just the people I wanted to regulate cutting edge niche
| technology.
| paganel wrote:
| For those in the know, is this a bipartisan position? Any chance
| of seeing rules like this one "over-ruled" (don't know the exact
| technical term) in case of different politicians coming to power
| in the US?
| barryrandall wrote:
| It's executive action, and can be changed on a whim (provided
| appropriate processes are followed).
|
| Legislative action would theoretically be best, but our current
| congress couldn't produce a better bill than a wet speak and
| spell.
| mortallywounded wrote:
| I'm unsure what limits will do. Selling weapons and explosives is
| regulated, but it doesn't stop the government from doing it. So
| by limiting it, we're only limiting the people?
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind
|
| I guess we're heading for spice then
| facu17y wrote:
| "Despite the increasing complexity and capabilities of machine
| learning models, they still lack what is commonly understood as
| "agency." They don't have desires, intentions, or the ability to
| form goals. They operate under a fixed set of rules or algorithms
| and don't "want" anything.
|
| Even in feedback loop systems where a model might "learn" from
| the outcomes of its actions, this learning is typically
| constrained by the objectives set by human operators. The model
| itself doesn't have the ability to decide what it wants to learn
| or how it wants to act; it's merely optimizing for a function
| that was determined by its creators.
|
| Furthermore, any tendency to "meander and drift outside the scope
| of their original objective" would generally be considered a bug
| rather than a feature indicative of agency. Such behavior usually
| implies that the system is not performing as intended and needs
| to be corrected or constrained.
|
| In summary, while machine learning models are becoming
| increasingly sophisticated and capable, they do not possess
| agency in the way living organisms do. Their actions are a result
| of algorithms and programming, not independent thought or desire.
| As a result, questions about their "autonomy" are often less
| about the models themselves developing agency and more about the
| ethical and practical implications of the tasks we delegate to
| them."
|
| The above is from the horse's mouth (ChatGPT4)
|
| My commentary:
|
| We have yet to achieve the kind of agency a jelly fish has, which
| operates with a nervous system comprised of roughly 10K neurons
| (vs 100B in humans) and no such thing as a brain. We have not yet
| been able to replicate the Agency present in a simple nervous
| system.
|
| I would say even an Amoeba has more agency than a $1B+ OpenAI
| model since the Amoeba can feed itself and grow in numbers far
| more successfully and sustainably in the wild with all the
| unpredictability in its environment than an OpenAI based AI
| Agent, which ends up stuck in loops or derailed.
|
| What is my point?
|
| We're jumping the gun with these regulations. That's all I'm
| saying. Not that we should not keep an eye and have a healthy
| amount of concern and make sure we're on top of it, but we are
| clearly jumping the gun since we the AI agents so far are unable
| to compete with a jelly fish in open-ended survival mode (not to
| be confused with Minecraft survival mode) due to the AI's lack of
| agency (as a unitary agent and as a collective).
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Is there a point buried in all that? You seem to be implying
| that there shouldn't be any regulatory body to address self-
| improving AI until it already exists? I don't think the
| government moves quickly enough for that to be okay.
| robbywashere_ wrote:
| No, we/they should be focusing on other _actual_ things that
| are happening here and now. Not science fiction.
| tap-snap-or-nap wrote:
| I believe this could possibly be about denial of technological
| advantages for their competitors and potential threats to their
| control of the markets.
| NotSammyHagar wrote:
| Often such practices are about that. I already got mine, block
| the next company. But there's also a certain potential danger.
| Lower end book cover artists lost their jobs this year with the
| various picture creator software coming out. What job category
| is next? It will happen. I expect my job as a software engineer
| to require more and more use of "programmer aids" which are
| just llm code writer tools. If I don't learn how to use them,
| I'll be less effective as a programmer, at some point I'd be
| less employable.
| robbywashere_ wrote:
| Cool. Great job guys. Now do one for CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION,
| RIGHTS AND PRIVACY. I WILL EVEN LET YOU COME UP WITH A FUNNY
| LITTLE 3 LETTER AGENCY NAME FOR IT. I DO NOT CARE.
| smcin wrote:
| Data Intelligence Agency?
|
| Netizen Safety Agency?
|
| Citizens(/Consumers) Browsing in Privacy?
|
| to repurpose a couple.
| terminous wrote:
| Since 1914, there has been a US law on the books that empowers
| the current Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to make broad
| enforcement of unfair or deceptive business practices:
|
| "(a) prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or
| deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce;
|
| (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct
| injurious to consumers;
|
| (c) prescribe rules defining with specificity acts or practices
| that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements
| designed to prevent such acts or practices;
|
| (d) gather and compile information and conduct investigations
| relating to the organization, business, practices, and
| management of entities engaged in commerce; and
|
| (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress
| and the public. "
|
| [1] https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/federal-
| tr...
| lewhoo wrote:
| Most of us care if the drugs we're taking are properly tested and
| won't have adverse side effects or at least that the adverse side
| effects are known so the risk/reward may be calculated. Most of
| us care if the cars we drive are safe for us and don't have any
| hidden flaws that may fatally emerge. Same goes for food and
| drinks I assume. Actually, it's probably easier to find areas
| with beneficial regulations than functionally no regulations at
| all. Why is it that in this case people are willing to abandon
| caution and just dive in without looking ?
| codingdave wrote:
| I must be missing something, as I'm not seeing the information in
| the linked press release that is fueling the specific commentary
| here around what the government intends to do, as all this seems
| to say is that they plan to create standards and provide testing
| environments. I'm sure there is more to it, I just didn't see
| where any of those facts were posted.
|
| So I'm assuming some of you have seen more details - can someone
| share where they can be found?
| terminous wrote:
| No, you're not missing anything. HNers and techies in general
| lean to the right-libertarian corner, and with that comes a
| common belief that when the government gets involved in
| something, they'll mess it up.
|
| It is against HN rules to call out a commenter for having not
| read the article, and earlier comments set the tone of the
| discussion when a post hits the front page. For many posts, by
| the time it hits the front page, the top-voted comments often
| include hot takes from someone who just saw the title and wrote
| a comment about whatever they imagined the article to be.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-01 23:02 UTC)