←back to thread

The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

(garymarcus.substack.com)
129 points NotInOurNames | 5 comments | 22 May 25 17:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
ipython ◴[22 May 25 18:34 UTC] No.44065198[source]▶
If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted.

Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

replies(8): >>44065368 #>>44065415 #>>44065494 #>>44065541 #>>44065574 #>>44065598 #>>44065632 #>>44066649 #
rakete ◴[22 May 25 18:50 UTC] No.44065368[source]▶
Oh I heard about that one, but didn't realize it is part of that "big beautiful tax bill"? Kind of crazy.

So is this like free-for-all now for anything AI related? Can I can participate by making my own LLM with pirated stuff now? Or are only the big guys allowed to break the law? Asking for a friend.

replies(1): >>44065395 #
1. OgsyedIE ◴[22 May 25 18:53 UTC] No.44065395[source]▶
The law doesn't matter, since the bill also prohibits all judges in the USA, every single one, from enforcing almost all kinds of injunctions or contempt penalties. (§70302, p.562)
replies(1): >>44065752 #
2. alwa ◴[22 May 25 19:23 UTC] No.44065752[source]▶
> 70302. Restriction of funds No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.

Doesn't that just require that the party seeking the injunction or order has to post a bond as security?

replies(1): >>44066179 #
3. OgsyedIE ◴[22 May 25 19:57 UTC] No.44066179[source]▶
Yes, the required security is proportional to the costs and damages of all parties the court may find wrongfully impacted.
replies(1): >>44068675 #
4. alwa ◴[23 May 25 00:43 UTC] No.44068675{3}[source]▶
Ah, so it would need to be so steep as to be prohibitive for most small plaintiffs?
replies(1): >>44069858 #
5. OgsyedIE ◴[23 May 25 04:27 UTC] No.44069858{4}[source]▶
Prosecutors, too. They're also movants.