US Chamber of Commerce Calls for AI Regulation (reuters.com) 42
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday called for regulation of artificial intelligence technology to ensure it does not hurt growth or become a national security risk, a departure from the business lobbying group's typical anti-regulatory stance. From a report: While there is little in terms of proposed legislation for AI, the fast-growing artificial intelligence program ChatGPT that has drawn praise for its ability to write answers quickly to a wide range of queries has raised U.S. lawmakers' concerns about its impact on national security and education.
The Chamber report argues policymakers and business leaders must quickly ramp up their efforts to establish a "risk-based regulatory framework" that will ensure AI is deployed responsibly. It added that AI is projected to add $13 trillion to global economic growth by 2030 and that it has made important contributions such as easing hospital nursing shortages and mapping wildfires to speed emergency management officials' response. The report emphasized the need to be ready for the technology's looming ubiquity and potential dangers.
The Chamber report argues policymakers and business leaders must quickly ramp up their efforts to establish a "risk-based regulatory framework" that will ensure AI is deployed responsibly. It added that AI is projected to add $13 trillion to global economic growth by 2030 and that it has made important contributions such as easing hospital nursing shortages and mapping wildfires to speed emergency management officials' response. The report emphasized the need to be ready for the technology's looming ubiquity and potential dangers.
CEOs & Middle Management (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike anyone else in a similar position, they have the political power to actually do something about it. They're usually anti-regulation because it benefits them to screw over their workers. Now that they see the writing on the wall for their bullshit jobs, they want to make sure it legally can't touch them.
The thing is, and AI could almost definitely outperform all these fucking idiot CEOs who can't make a decision past the next quarters profits.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they are in favor of something, it is almost always something that is bad for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Was going to say, but this should be a great cause of concern for the average citizen. It’s very likely that they’re pushing for laws that rig the game in their favor rather than actually help out people who will be the most impacted by this tech. And if I have to be honest, AI will likely impact the livelihoods of the lower-middle class negatively then it will those up top at least in the short-medium term.
Though imho, regulation of tech and the tech industry in general should’ve been don
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree. AI as it's being described here is a direct threat to the credentialed "learned" class far more than lower-middle class. Automation, robotics and off-shoring already wiped those folks out and the Chamber of Commerce cheered it on every step of the way. ChatGPT and the like directly threatens THEM now so clearly it's a matter of National Security that it be stopped!
Re: CEOs & Middle Management (Score:1)
And this technology will also wipe out the remainder that didnâ(TM)t get outsourced or automated already if implemented poorly or unethically. Though donâ(TM)t get me wrong, this is largely a cultural and political issue at heart rather then a problem with the technology itself (hopefully).
At most however, weâ(TM)re basically gonna trade one set of rich, âoeeducatedâ set of morons for another equally degenerate group of morons. Thatâ(TM)s generally how these âoerevolution
Re: (Score:1)
Repost due to skewered mobile formatting:
And this technology will also wipe out the remainder that didn’t get outsourced or automated already if implemented poorly or unethically. Though don’t get me wrong, this is largely a cultural and political issue at heart rather then a problem with the technology itself (hopefully).
At most however, we’re basically gonna trade one set of rich, “educated” set of morons for another equally degenerate group of morons. That’s generally
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that from a(*) programmer perspective, we want to automate ourselves out of our jobs. But we can't, because it's still too hard! I'm too dumb to make myself the tools to really look dumb.
While it's encouraging to see ChatGPT look up a trivial coding solution, I can't help but notice that it hasn't come up with its own At-Least-As-Good-As-ChatGPT-Chatbot yet, or any other interesting/nontrivial computer program (so far!). But that's what it needs to be able to do, before programmers can fi
Re: (Score:2)
This should really be a top rated comment. Just out of curiosity, do you know any well-known / researched algorithms / methods that do SGD, ADAM or some other type of gradient descent type neural network training, _during_ inference (other than the obvious, doing it immediately after inference each time and updating the model across all instances / shards)? That is what they are referring to and what some companies advertise, but I think it currently at least would actually have to be done in batches separ
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek also had Ferengi selling goods produced by a replicator. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
People can get a replicated cheeseburger anywhere, okay? They come to Quark's for the atmosphere and the attitude. Okay? That's what the flair's about. It's about fun.
Re: (Score:1)
Star Trek economics never even made sense, since you still have people doing menial and even outright dangerous jobs like replicator repairman and security. Or the fact that replicators can’t replicate certain elements such as antimatter, which is crucial for ship fuel so they still have to harvest and transport it in limited quantities.
Re: (Score:2)
From the US Chamber of Commerce's report:
Rather than trying to develop a one size-fits-all regulatory framework, this approach to AI regulation allows for the development of flexible, industry-specific guidance and best practices
Yes, they still want the regulation to be flexible enough that their industry-specific lobbyists can ensure those regulations help large corporations maintain their moats preventing competition. I agree the government should be working hard to building regulatory frameworks around the use of AI technology, but I would want the US Chamber of Commerce's hands as far away from the process as possible. Unfortunately that is very unlikely, which is the primary reason I wo
Re: (Score:3)
They're usually anti-regulation because it benefits them to screw over their workers.
Why does it do that? With such a vibrant job economy under this administration, there is no way a company could screw over anyone. For one, they can always work for someone far more agreeable to their demands for conditions or wages. And even if that fails, you can always become your own boss and incorporate in your line of work. You can even hire others, for what you both agree is fair for the work they do. Make it an employee owned cooperative even!
We live in a free society. In a free society, two part
Re: (Score:2)
LOL!
Re: (Score:1)
That might be it but the bottom line is the Chamber of Commerce's concerns about AI has fuckall to do with National Security. There are 50 other agencies directly responsible for that whose concerns might be valid but the Chamber of Commerce is not one of those. That alone should be enough to raise several red flags about whatever agenda they're pushing here.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The reason they're panicking and want regulation is they know they're actually a bunch of do-nothing chucklefucks and that ChatGPT could do their fucking jobs.
Unlike anyone else in a similar position, they have the political power to actually do something about it. They're usually anti-regulation because it benefits them to screw over their workers. Now that they see the writing on the wall for their bullshit jobs, they want to make sure it legally can't touch them.
The thing is, and AI could almost definitely outperform all these fucking idiot CEOs who can't make a decision past the next quarters profits.
You're mixing up your actors here. The Chamber of Commerce is not a bunch of greedy CEOs. Rather, it represents mainly small business owners -- neighborhood businesses. Blue collar workers. The baker and the plumber and the local grocery mart and barber so on. They organize n the annual town parade.
The greedy CEOs are the ones who want ChatGPT, so they can fire their customer support staff and low-level knowledge workers.
To the extent that the big corporations influence the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they w
Re:CEOs & Middle Management (Score:5, Informative)
US Chamber Members, USPBC 2021
Abbott, AEAI, Bayer, Cargill, Caterpillar, Inc., Citi, The Coca-Cola Company, Excelerate Energy L.P., ExxonMobil, Facebook, General Electric, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Global Logistics Providers, Google, Hecate Energy, Jamil & Jamil USA, Netsol Technologies, North Shore Medical Labs, PepsiCo, Pfizer, PMI Global Services, Inc., Procter & Gamble, S&P Global, Target, The Resource Group, Uber, Visionet Systems Inc
Yeah, sounds like a bunch of real small businesses! Way to run interference for literally the top lobbyist group in Washington D.C. that far outspends the next highest spending lobbying group. They literally represent Big Business CEO interests. What even is this easily disproven trollop?
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
US Chamber Members, USPBC 2021
Abbott,
AEAI,
Bayer,
Cargill,
Caterpillar, Inc.,
Citi,
The Coca-Cola Company,
Excelerate Energy L.P.,
ExxonMobil,
Facebook,
General Electric,
Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
Global Logistics Providers,
Google,
Hecate Energy,
Jamil & Jamil USA,
Netsol Technologies,
North Shore Medical Labs,
PepsiCo,
Pfizer,
PMI Global Services, Inc.,
Procter & Gamble,
S&P Global,
Target,
The Resource Group,
Uber,
Visionet Systems Inc
Yeah, sounds like a bunch of real small businesses! Way to run interference for literally the top lobbyist group in Washington D.C. that far outspends the next highest spending lobbying group. They literally represent Big Business CEO interests. What even is this easily disproven trollop?
You left out the other three million businesses?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The reason they're panicking and want regulation is they know they're actually a bunch of do-nothing chucklefucks and that ChatGPT could do their fucking jobs. Unlike anyone else in a similar position, they have the political power to actually do something about it. They're usually anti-regulation because it benefits them to screw over their workers. Now that they see the writing on the wall for their bullshit jobs, they want to make sure it legally can't touch them. The thing is, and AI could almost definitely outperform all these fucking idiot CEOs who can't make a decision past the next quarters profits.
I use Chat GPT for all my blogs on https://medicare-365.com/ [medicare-365.com]
"Responsibly"? (Score:2)
Who decides what "responsible" means in the context of AI?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who decides what "responsible" means in the context of AI?
Nobody. It's all just stupid noise, political posturing, FUD mongering, and an assurance that "we will be there to protect you".
Re: (Score:1)
Who decides what "responsible" means in the context of AI?
Obviously it's the extant leaders of industry, disruptive technologies are the things which make them lose their hard-stolen fortunes.
Careful Observation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The turtle's already out of the bucket... and it's coming for your job!
Irony as the key insight (Score:2)
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni... [pdfernhout.net]
"Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they [as well as civilian companies] seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing ma
Education (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a prof, and I have zero fucks to give about educators who want to gate-keep AI rather than adjust how they measure their student's learning progress. It is a concern just because too many people rely on old ways, but a lot of those ways were crap to begin with. In the example of the short answer during a supervised test, the test was obviously NOT well supervised. Many of these "old ways" are used because they reduce the instructor workload, which means that there could be intuitional structure issues t
Re: (Score:2)
Too late. (Score:2)
They have waited too long. The AIs have been developed and have already been deployed. Anything regulation they pass now is by definition reactionary regulation, the very thing they decry.
This bit says it all:
Rather than trying to develop a one size-fits-all regulatory framework, this approach to AI regulation allows for the development of flexible, industry-specific guidance and best practices,
Which is precisely because they lacked the foresight to develop such a framework and instead are scrambling to do something, anything.
I say fuck 'em. They made their bed and now it's time to lie on it.
Translation (Score:2)
"Regulation" can be translated into "we want to make sure that it's prohibitively expensive for anybody but big corporations (who are members of the CoC) to play around with AI" It's not much different than medical devices or the all-encompassing ITAR. Both of which are so expensive not just in terms of license fees but the need for dedicated employees to deal with the red tape that no small company can afford to be in those marketplaces.
IP rights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooh, the Chamber of Commerce! (Score:2)
Let the dying dinosaur groans begin!
Most of these business geniuses will be replaced by an AI in 5 years and all of them in 10, if not before.
Enjoy your MBA degrees guys. You're headed into a well deserved obscurity.
We have some time (Score:2)
Here, here! (Score:2)