SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As lawmakers worldwide attempt to understand how to regulate rapidly advancing AI technologies, Microsoft chief economist Michael Schwarz told attendees of the World Economic Forum Growth Summit today that "we shouldn't regulate AI until we see some meaningful harm that is actually happening, not imaginary scenarios."
The comments came about 45 minutes into a panel called "Growth Hotspots: Harnessing the Generative AI Revolution." Reacting, another featured speaker, CNN anchor Zain Asher, stopped Schwarz to ask, "Wait, we should wait until we see harm before we regulate it?"
[...]
Lawmakers are racing to draft AI regulations that acknowledge harm but don't threaten AI progress. Last year, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) warned Congress that lawmakers should exercise "great caution" when drafting AI policy solutions. The FTC regards harms as instances where "AI tools can be inaccurate, biased, and discriminatory by design and incentivize relying on increasingly invasive forms of commercial surveillance." More recently, the White House released a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, describing some outcomes of AI use as "deeply harmful," but "not inevitable."
(Score: 2, Informative) by namefags_are_jerks on Tuesday May 16, @03:42AM
Imagine what Laws for the Information Superhighway would've been put in place in 1990... Politicians weren't even at the 'series of tubes' level of understanding back then, and would've just copy&pasted from regulating the telephone companies. There likely would have been laws about financial fraud, but nothing about identity theft and DDoS. At the moment everyone's panicing about population manipulation and deepfakes, but future has still-to-be-invented threats using GenAI (high-frequency
AI-trading creating another Flash-Crash of 2010..?)
It reminds me of e-Scooters here in Australia -- one of our States (NSW) was 'pro-active' and used copy&pasted laws from other transportation that e-scoots barely resembled, resulting in them still being banned 20 years later, while another (QLD) started by allowing controlled trails and watching how people killed themselves, discovering that they did need different laws to bicycles and escoots from other countries, because Australians were using them differently from expected (well, we're dumb boofheads) and the transportation network is different. Even though it killed a (irresponsible..) few, Queensland kept them, but appropriate laws were introduced like "only allowed on streets with 50 km.h and under speed limits".