this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Machine Learning
1 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
- Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
- Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
- Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
- Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It sounds like you answered your own question.
I care a lot about AI ethics, but I'm hearing a lot of murmurs that the current wave of US government regulation looks more like pro-trust policy-making as a way of sabotaging open source initiatives.
Inter-industry regulation (not legal, just union/organization policy) right now seems to show a firm stance against generative AI for art, but since I am not an actor or illustrator, I will withhold commenting on those.
Yeah this is what I keep trying to explain to people. I think AI ethics to be important, but the major wave of apocalyptic AI fear mongering just comes across as regulatory capture. The ethical response is to expand access and get more backgrounds involved, not to leave it up to people in power.
I think it looks like regulatory capture by design. The point of even the most optimistic AI safety regulation is to restrict access, usage, progress, and slow or disable a market-driven dynamic. Any outcome from an honest initiative talking the correct steps will look like regulatory capture to some.