I mean that broadly seems like a good thing. Execution is important, but on paper this seems like the kind of forward thinking policy we need
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
742 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
59421 readers
2915 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Quite frankly it didn't put enough restrictions on the various "national security" agencies, and so while it may help to stem the tide of irresponsible usage by many of the lesser-impact agencies, it doesn't do the same for the agencies that we know will be the worst offenders (and have been the worst offenders).
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
“If the benefits do not meaningfully outweigh the risks, agencies should not use the AI,” the memo says. But the draft memo carves out an exemption for models that deal with national security and allows agencies to effectively issue themselves waivers if ending use of an AI model “would create an unacceptable impediment to critical agency operations.”
This tells me that nothing is going to change if people can just say their algoriths would make them too inefficient. Great sentiment but this loophole will make it useless.
This seems to me like an exception that would realistically only apply to the CIA, NSA, and sometimes the FBI. I doubt the Department of Housing and Urban Development will get a pass. Overall seems like a good change in a good direction.
The CIA and NSA are exactly who we don't want using it though.
Agreed but it’s at least a step forward, setting a precedent for AI in government use. I would love a perfect world where all bills passed are “all or nothing” legislation but realistically this is a good start, and then citizens should demand tighter oversight on national security agencies as the next issue to tackle
load more comments
(1 replies)
They're exactly who will carry on using it, even if there weren't any exemptions.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Algorithms that gerrymander voting district boundries might be an early battleground.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Folksy narrator: "Turns out, the U.S. government can not operate without racism."
Great sentiment but
It's not a "great sentiment" - it's essentially just more of the same liberal "let's pretend we care by doing something completely ineffective" posturing and little else.
Democrats are so fucking naive. They actually think that a system of permission slips is sufficient to protect us from the singularity.
OpenAI’s original mission, before they forgot it, was the only workable method: distribute the AI far and wide to establish a multipolar ecosystem.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I swear to god there has to be an entire chapter in Gödel Escher Bach about how this is literally impossible.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Is it already too late for us? Does anyone truly believe that will be enough to protect us?
Sent to my state representative. Thanks!
view more: next ›