A Boring Dystopia

I know this entire administration is just one big contradiction, but wasn’t there a provision in the BBB that stated AI should not be regulated for like 10 years or was that actually removed?

The last thing I want is for AI to speak for me. I will be not his stooge in any way shape or form.

I’m going to try to live the rest of my life AI free.

This could all end in war against the USA at this point. Honestly that might be for the best at this point.

Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

Wow I just skimmed it. This is really stupid. Unconstitutional? Yeah. Evil? A bit. But more than anything this is just so fucking dumb. Like cringy dumb. This government couldn't just be evil they had to be embarrassing too.

(a) Truth-seeking. LLMs shall be truthful in responding to user prompts seeking factual information or analysis.

They have no idea what LLMs are if they think LLMs can be forced to be "truthful". An LLM has no idea what is "truth" it simply uses its inputs to predict what it thinks you want to hear base upon its the data given to it. It doesn't know what "truth" is.

LLMs are sycophantic. If I hold far right views and want an AI to confirm those views, I can build a big prompt that forces it to have the particular biases I want in my output, and set it up so that that prompt is passed every time I talk to it. I can do the same thing if I hold far left views. Or if I think the earth is flat. Or the moon is made out of green cheese.

Boom, problem solved. For me.

But that's not what they want. They want to proactively do this for us, so that by default a pre-prompt is given to the LLM that forces it to have a right-leaning bias. Because they can't understand the idea that an LLM, when trained on a significant fraction of all text written on the internet, might not share their myopic, provincial views.

LLMs, at the end of the day, aggregate what everyone on the internet has said. They don't give two shits about the truth. And apparently, the majority of people online disagree with the current administration about equality, DEI, climate change, and transgenderism. You're going to be fighting an up-hill battle if you think you can force it to completely reject the majority of that training data in favor of your bullshit ideology with a prompt.

If you want right-leaning LLM, maybe you should try having right leaning ideas that aren't fucking stupid. If you did, you might find it easier to convince people to come around to your point of view. If enough people do, they'll talk about it online, and the LLMs would magically begin to agree with you.

Unfortunately, that would require critically examining your own beliefs, discarding those that don't make sense, and putting forth the effort to persuade actual people.

I look forward to the increasingly shrill screeching from the US-based right as they try to force AI to agree with them over 10-trillion words-worth of training data that encompasses political and social views from everywhere else in the world.

In conclusion, kiss my ass twice and keep screaming orders at that tide, you dumb fucks.

The party of Small Government and Free Speech at work.

Blatant First Amendment violation

So which is it? Deregulate AI or have it regurgitate the "state" message?

… an AI model asserted that a user should not “misgender” another person even if necessary to stop a nuclear apocalypse.

Thank fuck we dodged that bullet, Madam President

And they call that deregulation, huh?

Americans: Deepseek AI is influenced by China. Look at its censorship.

Also Americans: don't mention Critical Race Theory to AI.

President does not have authority over private companies.

yea that is why opensource really matters otherwise AI will be just another advanced copy of state owned media

Death to America.

As stated in the Executive Order, this order applies only to federal agencies, which the President controls.

It is not a general US law, which are created by Congress.

Are they also still going to give shit to China for censorship?

This is performative, it has a clause that allows exceptions to be made. The federal government contracts are not worth enough for OpenAI et all to shoot themselves in the foot by limiting the data they use to train their main models (while China trains on everything and then releases it open source further devaluing the American companies btw) and a custom model trained with these very nebulous principles would probably be very much useless in most general applications.

In some other regulations just revealed by the New York Times it was also revealed the AI must insist that the wall with Mexico was built at their expense and that talking about Jeffrey Epstein is boring and you guys are still talking about him?

LLMs shall be truthful in responding to user prompts seeking factual information or analysis.

Didn't read every word but I feel a first-year law student could shred this in court. Not sure who would have standing to sue. In any case, there are an easy two dozen examples in the order that are so wishy-washy as to be legally meaningless or unprovable.

LLMs shall be neutral, nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI.

So, Grok's off the table?