Most active commenters
  • baggy_trough(8)
  • ceejayoz(5)

←back to thread

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

(garymarcus.substack.com)
129 points NotInOurNames | 16 comments | 22 May 25 17:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
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 #
1. baggy_trough ◴[22 May 25 19:04 UTC] No.44065541[source]▶
That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.
replies(4): >>44065578 #>>44065581 #>>44065961 #>>44069742 #
2. ceejayoz ◴[22 May 25 19:07 UTC] No.44065578[source]▶
Unless the Feds are planning to regulate - which, for the next few years, seems unlikely - that's functionally the same.
3. drewser42 ◴[22 May 25 19:08 UTC] No.44065581[source]▶
So wild. The Republican party has hard-pivoted to a strong, centralized federal government and their base just came along for the ride.
replies(1): >>44066003 #
4. ipython ◴[22 May 25 19:40 UTC] No.44065961[source]▶
Ok. From the party of “states rights” that’s a bit hypocritical of them. I mean- they applauded Dodds which basically did the exact opposite of this- forcing states to regulate abortion rather than a uniform federal standard.
replies(1): >>44066160 #
5. baggy_trough ◴[22 May 25 19:44 UTC] No.44066003[source]▶
The strong federal government that bans regulation?
replies(1): >>44066111 #
6. ceejayoz ◴[22 May 25 19:52 UTC] No.44066111{3}[source]▶
They're not banning regulation, they want total control over it.
replies(1): >>44066171 #
7. baggy_trough ◴[22 May 25 19:56 UTC] No.44066160[source]▶
Dobbs did not force states to regulate abortion. It allowed them to.
replies(1): >>44066421 #
8. baggy_trough ◴[22 May 25 19:57 UTC] No.44066171{4}[source]▶
They in fact are banning regulation at the state and local level.
replies(1): >>44066247 #
9. ceejayoz ◴[22 May 25 20:02 UTC] No.44066247{5}[source]▶
Yes, which is a big fat regulation on what states and local governments can do.
replies(1): >>44068031 #
10. ceejayoz ◴[22 May 25 20:18 UTC] No.44066421{3}[source]▶
Yes, that's the hypocrisy.

Abortion: "Let the states regulate! States' rights! Small government! (Because we know we'll get our way in a lot of them.)"

AI: "Don't let the states regulate! All hail the Feds! (Because we know we won't get our way if they do.)"

replies(1): >>44068040 #
11. baggy_trough ◴[22 May 25 22:54 UTC] No.44068031{6}[source]▶
Would removing their regulation to ban regulation be banning regulation or not?
12. baggy_trough ◴[22 May 25 22:55 UTC] No.44068040{4}[source]▶
I agree that the policy approach is inconsistent with regards to states' rights. I was simply pointing out that your statement about the effects of Dobbs was false.
replies(1): >>44075007 #
13. rixed ◴[23 May 25 03:58 UTC] No.44069742[source]▶
I haven't followed those discussions (assuming there have been any kind of public discussions) but I guess the justification behind this is that IA is such a strategic industry for the USA that no state should dare to interfere.

Like, say, the development of nuclear weapons. Wouldn't that have been awfull for the US people if, for instance, say the state of Nevada or the Marshall Islands could have banned nuclear tests..? /s

replies(1): >>44069976 #
14. baggy_trough ◴[23 May 25 04:56 UTC] No.44069976[source]▶
Yes, you're certainly right about that, without the /s.
15. ceejayoz ◴[23 May 25 18:01 UTC] No.44075007{5}[source]▶
Not my statement.
replies(1): >>44075390 #
16. baggy_trough ◴[23 May 25 18:47 UTC] No.44075390{6}[source]▶
ah correct, the statement I was replying to.