Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI United Kingdom

UK Starts Drafting AI Regulations for Most Powerful Models (bloomberg.com) 18

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
The UK is starting to draft regulations to govern AI, focusing on the most powerful language models which underpin OpenAI's ChatGPT, Bloomberg News reported Monday, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: Policy officials at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are in the early stages of devising legislation to limit potential harms caused by the emerging technology, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing undeveloped proposals. No bill is imminent, and the government is likely to wait until France hosts an AI conference either later this year or early next to launch a consultation on the topic, they said.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who hosted the first world leaders' summit on AI last year and has repeatedly said countries shouldn't "rush to regulate" AI, risks losing ground to the US and European Union on imposing guardrails on the industry. The EU passed a sweeping law to regulate the technology earlier this year, companies in China need approvals before producing AI services and some US cities and states have passed laws limiting use of AI in specific areas.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Starts Drafting AI Regulations for Most Powerful Models More

UK Starts Drafting AI Regulations for Most Powerful Models

Comments Filter:
  • heeehehahaBWAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ahh, I needed that, thanks. Up next, regulations to control something equally misunderstood. Let's do the environment!

  • And why would anyone outside the UK give a fuck about that.

    Will just limit innovation in the UK.

    • The more countries limit innovation, the slower the world will move. Stifling a step towards AGI/ASI that would have otherwise been made in the UK is a good thing.
      • The world is innovative enough without the UK, which is slipping into an obscure country akin to Norway or New Zealand. Its sphere of influence since WW2 has greatly diminished. Could you imagine PM Rishi Sunak in a meeting with the American and Russian and Chinese presidents like at Potsdam today? So what if they regulate AI. China has, to their detriment. Lets just hope the US does not, otherwise you will find other countries happy to step in and take the next leaps in AI, because they will be all the mor
        • You really want humans to create a silicon golem; a new species that can outsmart and outcompete us? I don't. I'm a loud, proud "carbon power" guy.

      • The more countries limit innovation, the slower the world will move. Stifling a step towards AGI/ASI that would have otherwise been made in the UK is a good thing.

        Corporate lobbying for legislation to protect their investments only leads to increased capital investments not less. Legislation accelerates rather than stifles technology by protecting investments from smaller competition.

        It also significantly increases the chance of any futuristic sci-fi AI being successfully hoarded by corporations and governments aggregating power into increasingly fewer hands.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Delusions of grandeur, or the need to pretend that brexit didn't diminish our influence, or both.

      In the end we will do whatever the EU decides, regardless of if we agree with it or not, because nobody is going to make a special version for just the UK.

  • Premature regulation of AI is rent seeking by established players pulling up the drawbridge for new competitors. China is laughing at us. Again.
    • China is pretty strict on AI regulation since the nomenklatura wants to retain power. EU is regulating, China is regulating, UK is regulating, now let's do Russian, India, and the US.

  • "Turing. You are under arrest."

    Case being busted for "conspiracy to augment an AI" (among other things) in William Gibson's visionary cyberpunk novel Neuromancer (1984)

    (I believe, but not 100% sure, that Gibson also created the word cyberspace in that same book.)

    • Turing Police would actually be a good idea.

      • Turing Police would actually be a good idea.

        Only if humans (and/or AIs) make decisions that effect meat-space based on the art they read in cyberspace. See the problem?

        It hasn't always been this way on the network.

        Buuuut.... the same argument is used for banning and burning books, the newspeak practice of restricting the use of mere words (no more "master/slave" in source code--I guess they don't want to offend the computer that the code runs on), and the current "call me by my proper pronoun!" 'gender' nonsense. I'm gay. But I don't get offende

        • Remember, most dictators never killed another human being with their bare hands ... they just used words to convince other people to do it for them.

          • Remember, most dictators never killed another human being with their bare hands ... they just used words to convince other people to do it for them.

            Good point.

            The lesson is to remain vigilant when (and if) following orders.

            --
            Pyramid scam? PYRAMID SCAM!? The whole of goddamned CIVILIZATION is a pyramid scam!!!

  • They can obviously draft regulations and pass them into law. But is it really possible for the UK to affect AI use in its borders?

    The servers may be anywhere in the world. Are they going to try and regulate access to them? If they are going to try and regulate the end product appearing in the UK, is it going to be provable that it resulted from a forbidden use? And then there is the difficulty of distinguishing in law the use of AI for some purpose which is unlawful, when to use just a non-AI model of

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close