A body of corporations to regulate anything is not a body of regulation; it's a body of extraction constrained by managing public expectations.
With the support of government, don’t forget. Legislators have portfolios, needing constant attention.
Hit the nail on the head. I mean most governments regulation has been bought and paid for by corps for a long time anyway. I guess I better get my Rick Deckard coat and bottle of whiskey and my off world papers ready cause bladerunner here we come.
A regulatory board backed by corporations isn't the headline I wanted to read...
An oversight board comprised of the very people who are most likely to abuse AI? What could possibly go wrong?!
It's like the ESRB for video games.
Created explicitly to prevent the government from stepping in and regulating things properly
Because self-regulation worked so good in the past and this is totally not a move to make it hard for others to work in the field negate that advantage they made so far.
They will just fire anyone on the "regulatory" body that interferes with their $$$.
They're only desperate to preserve their first-mover advantage by making it harder for the competition to bring AI products to the market.
That's definitely part of it, but I suspect they realise what has come out of Pandora's box cannot be put back in. I guess you can't really appreciate how someone can misuse or abuse something until you see it first hand, there will always be things people do which defy your imagination.
I don't think they care about opening "Pandora's box" as Microsoft in particular had no issues collaborating with the Chinese military on AI research.
A body has been formed to stifle competition and give themselves free reins.
The basis of theft. Proprietary software is always about exploiting the end user through theft of ownership. Open Source has already beat these asshats at AI. No one wants to run their stalkerware in a world where any open and offline option exists. This is extremely obvious.
Admittedly they have said before that they're not particularly interested in trying to regulate open source projects. So it's not so bad.
Seems a bit awkward to have the people regulating AI development be the same ones leading it, but we'll see how it goes.
maybe its a body to gatekeep ai development instead of regulating it, who knows
That's what we have to assume.
That's how it works in finance as well. "Self-regulation" - no conflict of interest here ...
Shit, now the AI has a body!
Who gave these losers the right to "regulate" a damn thing?
Someone's getting too big for their britches.
And if some company or individual decides to ignore this "regulatory body" that these companies have just decided should be in charge of everything, what happens? Did any governments agree to this? Why do those particular companies get to decide who should be able to compete with them? Kind of convenient that the companies with the biggest lead in AI have declared that they get to decide what's "safe" for other companies to do while trying to catch up with them.
Ooo…a brand new Triumvirate of Terror, one that could go worldwide. All hail our new AI Overlords! /s
And why exactly should I or anyone else confine our research to what these monopolies want?
A body of corporations to regulate anything is not a body of regulation; it's a body of extraction constrained by managing public expectations.
With the support of government, don’t forget. Legislators have portfolios, needing constant attention.
Hit the nail on the head. I mean most governments regulation has been bought and paid for by corps for a long time anyway. I guess I better get my Rick Deckard coat and bottle of whiskey and my off world papers ready cause bladerunner here we come.
A regulatory board backed by corporations isn't the headline I wanted to read...
An oversight board comprised of the very people who are most likely to abuse AI? What could possibly go wrong?!
It's like the ESRB for video games.
Created explicitly to prevent the government from stepping in and regulating things properly
Because self-regulation worked so good in the past and this is totally not a move to make it hard for others to work in the field negate that advantage they made so far.
They will just fire anyone on the "regulatory" body that interferes with their $$$.
They're only desperate to preserve their first-mover advantage by making it harder for the competition to bring AI products to the market.
That's definitely part of it, but I suspect they realise what has come out of Pandora's box cannot be put back in. I guess you can't really appreciate how someone can misuse or abuse something until you see it first hand, there will always be things people do which defy your imagination.
I don't think they care about opening "Pandora's box" as Microsoft in particular had no issues collaborating with the Chinese military on AI research.
A body has been formed to stifle competition and give themselves free reins.
The basis of theft. Proprietary software is always about exploiting the end user through theft of ownership. Open Source has already beat these asshats at AI. No one wants to run their stalkerware in a world where any open and offline option exists. This is extremely obvious.
Admittedly they have said before that they're not particularly interested in trying to regulate open source projects. So it's not so bad.
Seems a bit awkward to have the people regulating AI development be the same ones leading it, but we'll see how it goes.
maybe its a body to gatekeep ai development instead of regulating it, who knows
That's what we have to assume.
That's how it works in finance as well. "Self-regulation" - no conflict of interest here ...
Shit, now the AI has a body!
Who gave these losers the right to "regulate" a damn thing?
Someone's getting too big for their britches.
And if some company or individual decides to ignore this "regulatory body" that these companies have just decided should be in charge of everything, what happens? Did any governments agree to this? Why do those particular companies get to decide who should be able to compete with them? Kind of convenient that the companies with the biggest lead in AI have declared that they get to decide what's "safe" for other companies to do while trying to catch up with them.
Ooo…a brand new Triumvirate of Terror, one that could go worldwide. All hail our new AI Overlords! /s
And why exactly should I or anyone else confine our research to what these monopolies want?