OpenAI CEO In 'Historic' Move Calls For Regulation Before Congress - Slashdot

Posted by BeauHD

• ›

  What is Assault AI? The vague, shifting definition is not a bug; it's a feature.
  
  The point is that no pleb should have access to an uncensored AI, and shall never be permitted to make an AI express racism (except against an approved race), nor sexism (except against the approved sex), nor politics (except in favor of the approved politics).

• Having 80+ year olds drafting and passing regulations for tech like this will only end up with disastrous results. Some of these people are proud that they still don't use "the email"

  • Re:

    Yep. That's why they're calling for quickly-passed laws before anybody really understands the tech.

    They want to absolve themselves of all responsibility ASAP.

• I used to be in this space, and prepped our CTO to testify in favor of certain laws citing "public interest" but it was always a lie and we laughed behind closed doors about how stupid the public was to believe us.

  The fact is that as a big company we love all regulation, as all regulation is done from the perspective of what the current status quo is; and as the incumbent leader in a space, we don't want any innovation that doesn't directly serve our roadmap, and we want to bury in paperwork anyone trying anything different; in this way, we maintain our market position. Our patented method for X was successfully written into law as the only way any company in the US could ever comply with regulation Y. We have made hundreds of millions of dollars from that one line in the US Code basically mandating that every company in business Z must pay us in order to business at all. The public are such gullible chumps.

  Altman is reading from our well used script here, as his business model depends on the only AIs being allowed are those lobotomized to only emit approved facts and narratives. Thus, he will cite the nebulous but ever present danger of AIs ever being allowed that aren't lobotomized being in the hands of the scruffy, uninformed public - all to preserve his revenue stream and build competitive moat.

  • Re:

    The primary use for licenses and regulation will be to help ensure that only that major players will be allowed to build and train these technologies, thus maintaining their continued stranglehold on society.

    As you say, it's not a safety net. It's a wall.

    • Re:

      I'd quality that a bit. The majority of biz regulation comes from two causes:

      A) Catastrophic mistakes that made news.

      B) Big co's who want to lock their control of the market in place.

• Established companies love regulation... anyone calling it historic is ignorant of history. Otherwise terms like regulatory capture wouldn't exist.

• Why not just build the AI you want ppl to use and sell it?

• The leader of a top contender company in a new market, wants to secure his company's position via regulating the competence out of existence.
  
  How very surprising and non self-serving of him.

• These chimps in suits actually think they know anything

• is to craft AI rules and regulations so that only Altman's company is allowed to make an AI product.

  > urged Congress to work with OpenAI and other companies in the field to figure out rules and guardrails

  That gives the game away.

• How on earth is that historic? Off the top of my head, SBF was in talks with senators to develop regulations around crypto (highly ironic considering what happened) and that wasn't even half a year ago. The best way to keep profits high is to limit or hinder your competition, and the most effective way to do that is to lobby for laws that do just that. It's not rocket science, it's been done before, and it will surely be done far into the future as well.