←back to thread

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

(garymarcus.substack.com)
129 points NotInOurNames | 4 comments | 22 May 25 17:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.01s | 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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
1. ceejayoz ◴[22 May 25 20:18 UTC] No.44066421[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 #
2. baggy_trough ◴[22 May 25 22:55 UTC] No.44068040[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 #
3. ceejayoz ◴[23 May 25 18:01 UTC] No.44075007[source]▶
Not my statement.
replies(1): >>44075390 #
4. baggy_trough ◴[23 May 25 18:47 UTC] No.44075390{3}[source]▶
ah correct, the statement I was replying to.