SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the next-up:-teaching-an-AI-how-to-read-and-understand-regulations dept.
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai says there is 'no question' that AI needs to be regulated
Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has called for new regulations in the world of AI, highlighting the dangers posed by technology like facial recognition and deepfakes, while stressing that any legislation must balance "potential harms ... with social opportunities."
"[T]here is no question in my mind that artificial intelligence needs to be regulated. It is too important not to," writes Pichai in an editorial for The Financial Times. "The only question is how to approach it."
Although Pichai says new regulation is needed, he advocates a cautious approach that might not see many significant controls placed on AI. He notes that for some products like self-driving cars, "appropriate new rules" should be introduced. But in other areas, like healthcare, existing frameworks can be extended to cover AI-assisted products.
Also at The Associated Press.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @07:08PM (2 children)
How much more obvious can they make it folks? Government regulation/meddling is used to enforce monopoly positions, not to help or protect you.
(Score: 2) by EEMac on Tuesday January 21 2020, @03:09PM (1 child)
This. 1000x this.
Big companies LOVE regulations. They have the big budgets and excess personnel to cope with them. There's no better way to keep upstarts from upsetting the marketplace than to put a bunch of government regulations in place.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 21 2020, @06:43PM
But they're doing this for our own good! That way we don't use some untrusted unsafe AI. Only Google's "safe" and trusted AI. Think of the children!
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @07:09PM (2 children)
If Google was visionary enough to have thought this, they should have said so back when they were doing Google Streetview, and the dangers posed by knowing the temporal changes in ones dwelling and vehicles over periods of time. The shit Google has had greenlighted or ignored for the past 15 years is far scarier than the nebulous concept of 'AI', which is more dangerous in Corporate and Government hands than it ever will be in an individuals... except to their status quo.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday January 20 2020, @07:17PM (1 child)
More crocodile tears from big tech. Sergei and Larry step down, and just now Big Chief Poo-Poo wants you to know that Google doesn't want to be evil anymore since Hillary lost the election and Hillary Junior (Elizabeth Warren) is going to lose the one after that.
It's like being caught red-handed cheating on a test, then immediately running to the principal's office to turn yourself in thinking that your phoney act of scrounging for brownie points is somehow gonna earn you redemption and get you out of trouble.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 21 2020, @04:09PM
You cheat on your tests? Do you have Siri take the test for you?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @08:48PM (5 children)
So the company at the forefront of AI, having got there in an environment with zero regulations, is now asking that regulations be created. In other words, "now that we got where we need to be, please use laws to raise the bar against our potential competitors." Quintessential example of bald-faced rent-seeking.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday January 20 2020, @09:22PM
You can say true things in the the pursuit of a dishonest goal, though.
Immediately breaking up the googlopoly would probably be the best way to address this inevitable regulatory capture.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 20 2020, @10:16PM
It is called desensitization [wikipedia.org] - repeat it until all negative reactions cease and this becomes the new normal.
That's the only way to push the "economic exponential growth" just a little bit further, because some clowns need to show the economy is booming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday January 20 2020, @11:11PM (2 children)
Maybe they could go with a religious decree instead, "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." [fandom.com]
On another note, what defines AI [wikipedia.org] from a legal perspective, and distinguishes it from plain old computing?
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Tuesday January 21 2020, @09:13AM (1 child)
Aside from the trolling link, I came to ask a similar question. Currently, the terms Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning are largely used to differentiate data-driven (inference-based) systems from rule-based systems. A lot of the most interesting AI research has led to the creation of rule-based systems that can efficiently do something that the inference-based systems were doing less efficiently (but using them to understand what the rules should be). Are these considered AI from the perspective of regulation? Or do we just count 'deep' systems (i.e. ones that have a bunch of stuff in the middle that no one really understands)?
Do rule-based systems where the outcomes are the result of emergent properties, rather than directly from the encoded rules (such as a number of network routing mechanisms) count as AI systems? The problems that they're describing are to do with the applications of technology, not to do with the way that the technology is implemented. If someone comes up with a rule-based system for creating realistic video fakes, why would this be exempt from regulation? If someone creates realistic fake videos by painstakingly editing each frame by hand, is that exempt (possibly - often being able to do X at scale is considered significantly worse than being able to do X)?
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday January 21 2020, @08:02PM
I was tangentially referring to how while we're sort of participating in the computing/AI revolution, the rest of the world is pretty much just having it brushed onto their lives like paint, without much choice. Who knows, when farmers talk about AI in a few years, there may start to be confusion in those discussions.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @09:15PM
The industry can't just self-regulate? It went all so well with like the phone chargers and such.
/sarcasm
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday January 20 2020, @09:24PM (5 children)
What are the regulations for having, say, a lion? Or live contagious viruses? I hear pretty strict. That might be a good 'guidepost' in this area, but no one listens to me.
Whatever law and enforcement method, good luck tracking the bond villains down in their bunker supercomputing center, but it is good for us to try and at least discourage experimenting solo in your isolated lab with the various horsemen of the apocalypse. They did such a good job keeping a hold of epstein.
Wait, what? Epstein escaped? Yikes! Things must be really corrupt around here and so Im not sure about the prospects for laws like this, unless they are just talking about going after poor people who have more than 3 cpu's in their apartment. Which they might be.
fwiw I also support punishment for creating ai's and torturing them, and torturing robots. Creating sentience as a means to blow of sadistic steam is an idea we should outlaw just like we outlaw human torture.
Wait a minute, human torture is not outlawed?
oh shit. Well then, why is this guy making money to dance the kabuki and I am not, for pointing out how his deck chair arrangement is nice, but this is the titanic....
thesesystemsarefailing.net but especially that no one is following the geneva conventions and no one cares if they can use their outrage as a bargaining chip, the solemaini murder was a direct missile strike on the magna carta and habeus corpus, and the post ww2 international order, as is what they are doing to assange and manning.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 20 2020, @09:44PM (3 children)
Ban all neuromorphic chips for home users. All use of AI must be done through licensed spy cloud providers. Failure to comply will result in FBI agents swarming your residence.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Redundant) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday January 20 2020, @10:07PM
Not sure if you have been reading what I have been posting as closely as you may think you have.
But the fbi agents are already swarming, they are just not identifying themselves because they want to be your bestest friend and radicalize you so they get a christmas bonus. Or feed behavioral data into their predictive neural net.
You do not need augmentation in order to think in a way that bothers the fbi at this point, it is the thinking itself that sets off bells and whistles at the fusion center.
You can see how well their strategy has been working, I think quite nicely, by how the very basic, clearly stated, plainly reasoned points I am making here sound like they are from neptune.
https://archive.is/f4TVo [archive.is]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 20 2020, @10:12PM
I think Broadcom, Intel, Apple, Samsung and all the others will strenuously object. If hits them in the market size.
The best solution: your phone will neuromorphingly extract the features in the captured data and the send the extracted features for AI processing in the cloud.
It will be your phone with your neuromorphic chips, just doing the work for them, all on your expense. And you'll be able to do nothing about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2, Interesting) by NPC-131072 on Monday January 20 2020, @10:32PM
There's an app for that! [cnet.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 21 2020, @04:12PM
I want the pale horse. He's the coolest.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Monday January 20 2020, @10:00PM
> Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has called for new regulations in the world of AI
Fine. "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."
Now let's go full jihad on this data-mining monopolist desperate to make the barrier of entry for the industry he dominates impossible to surmount.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Monday January 20 2020, @10:42PM (3 children)
When the world goes the way of AI it will be the humans that are treated like robots. It will all be black and white to the machines.
Want to get into college? Forget your personality, you better look great on paper.
Need some medical attention? Well, your history shows you aren't very agreeable, money would be better spent elsewhere.
Charged with a crime you didn't commit? The data shows you have a 79% chance of being the perpetrator and no one else is in the database.
Need a loan? Remember that time in 3rd grade when you stole from the lunch cafeteria?
Came straight from work? The system shows you stopped in the red-light district. You're a pervert and a liar ey?
Most people will be fine with this system until one day they fall outside of the system and realize there are no human minds left to appeal to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @11:08PM
Humans are lazy, stinky, disloyal, and don't comply with instructions. So they should be treated worse than mindless robots.
There is no red-light district. Assuming they can even get employment, humans will come straight home from work and come straight into a robot snatch.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday January 20 2020, @11:12PM
"Whoa, check out the squares on her QR code! I want me some of that."
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Monday January 20 2020, @11:19PM
Liar: nope, came straight at the red light district. Pervert: nope, didn't come *at* work.
Bullets dodged.
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday January 21 2020, @06:13PM
No taxation without representation; or else.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.