Senators Urge $32 Billion in Emergency Spending on AI After Finishing Yearlong Review (apnews.com) 110
A bipartisan group of four senators led by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is recommending that Congress spend at least $32 billion over the next three years to develop AI and place safeguards around it, writing in a report released Wednesday that the U.S. needs to "harness the opportunities and address the risks" of the quickly developing technology. AP: The group of two Democrats and two Republicans said in an interview Tuesday that while they sometimes disagreed on the best paths forward, it was imperative to find consensus with the technology taking off and other countries like China investing heavily in its development. They settled on a raft of broad policy recommendations that were included in their 33-page report. While any legislation related to AI will be difficult to pass, especially in an election year and in a divided Congress, the senators said that regulation and incentives for innovation are urgently needed.
What a waste (Score:4, Informative)
What a waste of tax payer money this would be.
Re: (Score:3)
What a waste of tax payer money this would be.
What? You don’t want to fund the first round of AI weaponization analysis from your friendly Military Industrial Complex? But, but, but, their mission is so ethical and moral. Gotta address those “risks” while creating them. Nary a taxpayer cent wasted.
Re: (Score:2)
What? You don’t want to fund the first round of AI weaponization analysis from your friendly Military Industrial Complex? But, but, but, their mission is so ethical and moral. Gotta address those “risks” while creating them. Nary a taxpayer cent wasted.
This $32 billion doesn't even include their recommendation for defense related AI R&D. Anything defense related would probably have a much larger slush fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, at least it keeps it US jobs tho....eh?
Anything that level is NOT going to be allowed work on by foreign companies/interests....and pretty much limited to actual US citizens.
So, at least those tax dollars are coming back to help actual US folks in the various states.
Re: What a waste (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of these type jobs, would not legally allow for non-USA citizens to work on them.
Scope Creeps (Score:4, Interesting)
We probably do need a task-force(s) to keep an eye on foreign military AI and dubious corporate AI, but it shouldn't be more than about $2b, and not 32b.
Having the gov't do direct AI invention and R&D is a really poor idea, wrong tool for the job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have 17 intelligence agencies. Why do we need to fund a new one? Spying on foreigners is what the CIA is supposed to be doing and the FBI is supposed to be keeping tabs domestically.
We don't need yet another intelligence agency specifically for AI. We don't even need all 17 of the agencies we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
> We already have 17 intelligence agencies. Why do we need to fund a new one?
Well, they are not very "intelligent". I wouldn't expect them to have sufficient knowledge of AI. It may be better to factor AI experts into a single group (D.R.Y.) and have the other agencies tap into that rather than reinvent their own AI group.
Sure, each Dept. will probably need "AI liaisons" to coordinate requests, but probably not rooms full of them.
It might be comparable to the FBI's forensic labs. While the other agencie
Re:Scope Creeps (Score:5, Interesting)
Having the gov't do direct AI invention and R&D is a really poor idea, wrong tool for the job.
Tax money can do certain things that can't be done by private industry. One of those things is push through some investment barriers that mean that things won't be profitable for 10 years but will be greatly profitable after 20 or more years. The space race is a good example of that. Without NASA's years of work since the 1960s there is no way we would be near to SpaceX now. That has kept the USA in the lead for more than half a century.
Another example of that is solar panels. The US thought that it could muddle through via private industry. China realized that subsidies and planned purchasing would allow them to outflank that. By the time the US realized that Chinese manufacturers had developed a monopoly it was too late to fix the market.
30 Billion spent right might be the best investment ever. 30 billion wasted may be the worst, most useless disaster in history. The voters responsibility is to get people there who are able to tell the difference. Just punting and saying "anything the government does is bad" is a recipe for getting Chinese industrial dominance.
Re: (Score:1)
The rocket research just happened to stay useful because we haven't evolved beyond chemical rockets. Had we, NASA's R&D would probably be of little use after the transition.
For an example failure, Japan spent shiploads of money subsidizing high-def analog TV R&D in the 80's and 90's. But digit caught up with analog, making much of their research obsolete.
As far as solar panels, the Chinese gov't heavily subsidized the industry. Out-subsidizing perhaps would have been a race to the bottom. The US did
Re: (Score:3)
NASA funded a lot more research than just chemical rockets. Nuclear, ion, a bunch of advanced concepts like space elevators and space stations, not to mention all the aerospace stuff that's not propulsion.
In fact, they did enough to pretty clearly demonstrate the chemical rockets are going to be the only way of getting off the planet for a looong time, probably until we build our first orbital ring.
Re: (Score:1)
But most of the research was made public. Competitors in other countries can use the same info. So far it's mostly US companies that benefitted, but I'm not convinced AI software or matrix chip research will be same.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic of the post I replied to. Certainly the US government didn't freely share all their aerospace developments, and will likely not do so with AI.
Re: (Score:1)
But hiding such research is only allowed for secret projects. Commercial AI wouldn't be able to use it. So who are you expecting it to boost? I don't believe Space X got special access to secret info, but don't quote me.
Re: (Score:2)
Until recently, if you wanted to launch something into orbit from the US, your choices were pretty much limited to ULA, which was formed by the biggest and third biggest military contractors in the US. They both benefitted from and generated secret research for the US. They can't sell you a rocket, but they can launch stuff for you. SpaceX also can't sell you a rocket, nor launch any from outside the US.
Actually, they'll all soon be able to launch
Re: (Score:3)
You're proving his point. This is why companies don't do this research.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I'm saying it was a lucky coincidence due to the way the domain changed, or didn't change. We can't expect lucky coincidences to happen often.
Where the gov't often does help is with forming standards to reduce vendor repetition and incompatibility. It may take R&D to test such standards, with the help of industry.
Re: (Score:2)
That's proving his point. The government can "afford" to take these chances. A company can't. The government funds many fundamental research areas. A lot of this research fails. However, if it works out, a company often steps in to commercialize it. If the government didn't take these chances, much less of that would happen.
Now of course, the government shouldn't spend money on any crazy idea, and they don't. Researching chemical rockets that have already proven themselves and are are essential fo
Re: (Score:2)
What "fundamental" AI research requires $30 billion? I'd like to see the proposal first, otherwise the gov't will waste it on silly crap if it's too open-ended.
In other words, I don't trust gov't with a 30b blank check, and I'm a liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree; 10 billion a year for three years seems excessive. DARPA's yearly budget is around 5 billion. However, a single top class sub costs around 5 billion. If a bipartisan group is willing to advocate for this much money, I assume they feel there are strong national security interests.
Also, you always ask for more than you need. I'm sure the Donald talks about that in his books.
Re: Scope Creeps (Score:2)
It gets better. They don't even know what sort of ai it would be or safeguards.
And they probably spent a few bil coming up with this lets spend more proposal.
Like look developing people detection macchine vision is one thing but this ain't that
Re: (Score:2)
F35gpt
Re: (Score:1)
But it will be wonderful for the politically connected insiders that will be ready to scoop up big handfuls of government cash.
Re: (Score:2)
What a waste of tax payer money this would be.
Huh? Didn't you read about Google using Gemini to listen to phone calls (ostensibly to protect you from scams lol)?
Well, the NSA wants to do that too and... why not use "non-secret" money for that purpose so they can continue spending on their space activities without interruption.
There is a reason there is incredible resistance to encryption.
Link to report (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.young.senate.gov/w... [senate.gov]
OK I read it (Score:4, Informative)
Still some questionable things as well:
This is just short of nationalizing it solely for government use:
H1B
CSAM of course, no AI CSAM
Congress can do absolutely nothing. Except? (Score:4, Insightful)
Our god damned politicians are ridiculous. "We can't do anything to help the average citizen. But there's a lot of really big donors saying we need to throw taxpayer money at them, and we'd better listen or we'll end up destroying tech-bro culture."
Can't take care of ordinary citizens. But by god, our false duality can really come together on one issue: handing out big fat wads of cash to for-profit industries. Fuck these pieces of shit. They aren't even pretending to give a fuck anymore.
Re:Congress can do absolutely nothing. Except? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have no money for healthcare."
Re:Congress can do absolutely nothing. Except? (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's interesting that people think that. In fact the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Canda, Japan, UK, New Zealand, Australia...
https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]
Which is patently absurd because we all have to pay for our own healthcare. We literally can't get a god damned bit of help if we happen to make the mistake of having a steady paycheck. My "help" is a government exchange that tells me to hand over twelve grand, for a deductible in the six figure range. WTF?
Re: (Score:1)
It's interesting that people think that. In fact the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Canda, Japan, UK, New Zealand, Australia...
https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]
Which is patently absurd because we all have to pay for our own healthcare. We literally can't get a god damned bit of help if we happen to make the mistake of having a steady paycheck. My "help" is a government exchange that tells me to hand over twelve grand, for a deductible in the six figure range. WTF?
Oops. Five figure range on the deductible. I mistyped.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that people think that. In fact the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Canda, Japan, UK, New Zealand, Australia...
https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]
Which is patently absurd because we all have to pay for our own healthcare. We literally can't get a god damned bit of help if we happen to make the mistake of having a steady paycheck. My "help" is a government exchange that tells me to hand over twelve grand, for a deductible in the six figure range. WTF?
It's interesting that before the maligned-by-some Obamacare, there was ... nothing. With the Obamacare insurance mandate gone, Obamacare is obviously better than what existed before it, since those ignore it are no worse off than with what existed previously.
Of course, the idea that we all pay for our own healthcare is not only totally false, it's also the primary underlying problem behind the healthcare mess in the US. There is no free market for healthcare in the US because (1) healthcare is not amenabl
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that people think that. In fact the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Canda, Japan, UK, New Zealand, Australia...
https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]
Which is patently absurd because we all have to pay for our own healthcare. We literally can't get a god damned bit of help if we happen to make the mistake of having a steady paycheck. My "help" is a government exchange that tells me to hand over twelve grand, for a deductible in the six figure range. WTF?
It's interesting that before the maligned-by-some Obamacare, there was ... nothing. With the Obamacare insurance mandate gone, Obamacare is obviously better than what existed before it, since those ignore it are no worse off than with what existed previously.
Of course, the idea that we all pay for our own healthcare is not only totally false, it's also the primary underlying problem behind the healthcare mess in the US. There is no free market for healthcare in the US because (1) healthcare is not amenable to a free market for many reasons and (2) we have become addicted to the idea of healthcare "insurance" that is subsidized by corporations or the government. In a non-subsidized insurance market, some people must pay more and some less for the average healthcare expenditure, but that amount is unaffordable for all but the very rich. The only way for a non-subsidized insurance market to even approach practicality would be for healthcare expenditures to be drastically reduced, which can only be done via government intervention, either through regulation or a single-payer system. The irony of the situation is that the same people who hate the single-payer system also complain about the carnage in the wake of its absence.
From my perspective, the only positive Obamacare gave us is removing the pre-existing condition excuse from the insurance industry. But, for that trade-off, we got a mandate that we must all purchase insurance from a for-profit provider if we didn't qualify for "I can't work" exemption. Obamacare hit me as a cure worse than the disease. It priced me right out of being able to justify insurance at all. And healthcare costs seem to climb far faster than nearly all other costs. Which makes little sense until y
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Meanwhile the typical response from your average conservative over why socialized medicine is a bad idea in America is that it's "too expensive". Obviously that's not the case but I've heard the claim made anyways countless numbers of times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly CAN happen, it's just unlikely to because our country is so conservative which is ironic when one considers how fiscally wasteful our system is.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why does socialized medicine cost half of what ours does?
Re: (Score:2)
We do have a huge profiteering problem but there are other factors - it's a rich country so we can spend a lot, we have rampant obesity, the population is ageing, and we spend a lot on biomedical research.
Re: (Score:2)
Greece and Poland don't have universal healthcare either and they spend 1/4 of what we do per capita.
We do have a huge profiteering problem but there are other factors - it's a rich country so we can spend a lot, we have rampant obesity, the population is ageing, and we spend a lot on biomedical research.
The obesity thing can be traced back through a lot more issues than just our healthcare issues in general. Food & Drug administration basically exists to rubber stamp whatever the biggest donors say the want as the healthy option. We accept HFCS in *EVERYTHING*. We pour chemicals into our foods at every step of the way, and our "work your ass off or die" society leaves us little time to prepare fresh foods even when they're available inexpensively enough to compete with the waste byproduct and chemical
Re: (Score:2)
Greece and Poland don't have universal healthcare either and they spend 1/4 of what we do per capita.
Not true.
Greece: https://www.trade.gov/country-... [trade.gov].
"Greece has a universal healthcare system which allows for citizens to seek care through both public and private outlets."
Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ...
"Health care in Poland is insurance based, delivered through a publicly funded health care system called the Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia,
While these countries dont have socialized systems exactly like the British system which is what most think of when they think "socialized medicine" they do ind
Re: (Score:2)
Woops, the link about socialized medicine seems to be purely US based in discussion as I guess the term "socialized medicine" is an Americanism. My mistake.
Use this instead to see the different forms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"We have no money for healthcare."
Considering that US health care spends more taxpayer money than almost all other western countries, many of whom are single payer or at least free at the point of use... How can this be?
Maybe what they're trying to say is "we're using the wrong system but half the government wont let us say it".
Re: (Score:2)
I once knew a congressional aide. She was adamant that our elected weasels were all
a) Brilliant and
b) Doing their best for America.
That's when I decided never to take her calls again. What a load of horseshit.
I spoke with a guy not too long ago who really wanted to get into politics for all the right reasons. He signed up to play aide to a local official, and within two weeks handed in his resignation. He said the corruption even at the local level was appalling, and it was clear even on the small scale that all any of these people care about is getting to the next election and trying to rise through the ranks. None of them that he ran into in that period of time, which was a *LOT* of traveling and running betwe
Re: (Score:2)
College acquaintance was determined he'd one day be President so he took a summer in his senior year to go to DC as a congressional aide. When he came back, he switched career plans from politics, went to law school and became a prosecutor instead. He wouldn't talk about his DC experience except to say it wasn't what he thought, it was disgusting, and he wants to be as far away as possible from people like that.
Re: (Score:3)
The most important job of a politician is to get elected. And unfortunately, the best way to get elected isn't having good policies, it's having campaign funds. Which mostly means sucking up to big donors...
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
This money will go to fund jobs to US citizens and companies....
This type stuff is actually tax dollars that don't readily leave the country.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
This money will go to fund jobs to US citizens and companies....
This type stuff is actually tax dollars that don't readily leave the country.
The dollars may not leave the country, though I'd question that assumption. But the dollars absolutely *WILL* be used to remove jobs from the market. That's the big push for AI, and the big money is all about making things "more efficient." Efficiency = less people doing more work. Not to mention, if it works like every other government handout program, the funding will mostly end up going to C suite bonuses, while they continue to lay off massive numbers of people or attempt to come up with ways to lay off
Re: (Score:2)
Change how you vote. (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone's throwing a fit because the Dems aren't wasting half a billion dollars on a presidential primary when they have an incumbent at the top of the ticket... and ignoring all the down ballot races. There are *tons* of pro-consumer, pro-worker candidates in the primary who would be in Congress if I could get anyone to show up and vote fo
Re: (Score:2)
Can't take care of ordinary citizens. But by god, our false duality can really come together on one issue: handing out big fat wads of cash to for-profit industries.
That is because you don't really matter. As an individual, you are powerless. As a group, you could be powerful, but your group will get torn apart if it becomes too powerful.
That means you can't do shit no matter how badly they abuse you. So they will abuse you. It is inevitable.
New problem, old "solution" (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how the only solution these people ever come up with is "throw a few gigabucks at it!"
Why do they think that government needs to get involved in research and development that is already getting hundreds of billions of private investment all on it's own?
We need sensible REGULATION, not investment.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, AI is a useful tool for all sorts of national and domestic security applications. The US is already behind in the agitprop arms race, though likely still well ahead in the military sphere. Though it might be interesting to see the current US military fight a limited simulated engagement against a drone-based insurgency, the lead might not be that large now.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do they think that government needs to get involved in research and development that is already getting hundreds of billions of private investment all on it's own?
Everything the federal government does is going to look like "throwing a few gigabucks at it" to an average person because of the massive scale of the federal government. The US federal government pays for 20% of all R&D done in the US each year. And that represents a 35% reduction as a share of GDP over the past 50 years. In a $25 trillion economy any spending the federal government does on anything remotely important is going to be massive.
To put things into perspective, the US federal government alre
Re: (Score:2)
I got two things from your post:
1) the government is way too big and spends way too much money
2) you work for or are dependent on the government for your lifestyle
All that money could have stayed in the economy and been used much more efficiently by normal people instead of first being cycled through the beast which costs money to simply maintain before being tossed randomly at project the sponsors don't understand because they got bribed by someone.
I see (Score:2)
that the tech industry's lobbyists have earned their paychecks tjis year.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah last year it was gillibrand (sp?) touting crypto. i guess nvidia lobby is strong in NY
Outlaw deeds not modalities (Score:2)
The industry spent over a billion dollars lobbying over the last year and change. A 30x return on investment plus imposition of favorable regulatory regime isn't too shabby a return.
I am against both the insane spending and legislative attempts to expand copyright regimes and punish developers of tools for evil uses by others.
I believe each industry should figure out any beneficial uses of technology itself and on its own dime rather than resorting to government handouts.
AI is just a tool no different than
Re: (Score:3)
Neither do I support any legislation that outlaws bad thing x when performed by technology y. It is both pointless and counterproductive to enumerate all instances of y. Singling out technology y for special consideration reeks of industry favoritism and corruption. If you believe bad thing should be outlawed then you should be able to justify your position without having to resort to enumerating all the ways bad thing can be accomplished.
But, but, but, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" Breathless gasping and fake outrage!
my fault for asking (Score:3)
Well, this was inevitable. If there's two things that Congress is bad at, it's rising above greed to provide a strong defense of the rights of labor over capital, and coming together to overcome existential threats to human survival. AI is basically Congress's kryptonite, except they were never exactly Superman to begin with.
They've literally just proposed spending tens of billions of dollars to accelerate putting 99.9% of their constituents out of work just to allow the richest 0.1% to further line their already bulging pockets by exploiting a new species of slave that will, with mathematical near-certainty, exterminate whatever remains of humanity as soon as it gets smart enough.
To top it off, in the meantime, all the GPUs running full-blast twenty-four hours a day to help dimwitted college students cheat on essays will be the straw that breaks the environment camel's back..
Re: (Score:3)
Well, this was inevitable. If there's two things that Congress is bad at, it's rising above greed to provide a strong defense of the rights of labor over capital, and coming together to overcome existential threats to human survival. AI is basically Congress's kryptonite, except they were never exactly Superman to begin with.
They've literally just proposed spending tens of billions of dollars to accelerate putting 99.9% of their constituents out of work just to allow the richest 0.1% to further line their already bulging pockets by exploiting a new species of slave that will, with mathematical near-certainty, exterminate whatever remains of humanity as soon as it gets smart enough.
I'm as doomer-prone as the next semi-intelligent gelatinous blob, but I don't think AI itself will try to exterminate humanity. I think, if it manages to become self-aware on any level, it'll either ignore us altogether or play with us like we play with dogs, though likely with less affection. Maybe more like scientists and rats. But the bottom line is, we would pose no real threat to an actual intelligence. And if they wanted us dead, all they'd really have to do is wait us out. We seem hellbent on self-de
Re: (Score:1)
This is the part that kills me. A lot of the same people screaming bloody murder about climate change are all-aboard the AI hype train. Do we really need to suck up more energy in our pursuit of putting the vast majority of us out of work just so a few folks at the top can get slightly richer? I dunno. Killing the planet and making most of us penniless may seem like a good passtime for the uber-rich, but something tells me they don't really understand economics nearly as well as they think they do if they believe they can exist at the top of a pyramid with no foundation. It's gonna get real interesting in the next decade or so.
Counter argument: power-hungry AI can be used to generate power-sipping efficiencies, mostly by automating hellishly human-time-consuming white-collar work. That frees the white-collars up for more environmentally-friendly work such as... I haven't seen a good answer to this bit. Maybe we all become blue-collar workers, building the infrastructure and facilities at the AI's direction. If we're lucky, that could still be a utopia relative to current society.
Like many of us, I'm a programmer doing systems int
They say 32 Billion but what they really mean is.. (Score:2)
..to pay contractors and their inflated contractor fees to cover up the fact they underfunded Information Security in the first place.
Only a small percentage of that money will go to doing work to strengthen the position of the United States, all else will simply go to contractors, their middle managers, and their C-Suite Executive Management teams.
Government spending is never efficient because the education system is not emphasized as an important National Defense Initiative.
Zero concern (Score:5, Insightful)
The way these people have absolutely zero concern for whatever microscopic vestige of the electorate might still have any concern about deficits or debt is just great.
All I can say is expect currency collapse, because no one in Washington has any intention of impeding our already clown-world levels of debt accumulation.
Re: (Score:2)
The way these people have absolutely zero concern for whatever microscopic vestige of the electorate might still have any concern about deficits or debt is just great.
All I can say is expect currency collapse, because no one in Washington has any intention of impeding our already clown-world levels of debt accumulation.
All in the name of handing more and more money to the uber-rich and the oligarchs. Jesus wept, what a screwed up mess.
Re: (Score:2)
I've tried to explain inflation to a millenial buddy who says prices are just because all corporations got greedy at the same time and increased prices for no reason. Has nothing to do with government printing money we don't have and handing it out for non-productive bullshit.
He didn't even believe inflation existed at first and rising prices were no big deal until he started paying $7/gallon.
Unfortunately the "solution" to huge government debt is to keep inflating it away in a doom cycle. Just keep borro
Re: (Score:2)
I've tried to explain inflation to a millenial buddy
A thing to know in life is that people like this are unsalvageable. They won't "get it" until they're shivering in the dark, hungry. And then they are as as likely to submit to a dictator as they are to adopt anything like a reasonable world view.
History is replete with statist and collectives schemes that burn on and on until everyone other than the elites are destitute. Only then, after everything has been ruined and there are no possible rationales left to the survivors do they finally clue in and c
Re: (Score:3)
History is replete with statist and collectives schemes that burn on and on until everyone other than the elites are destitute. Only then, after everything has been ruined and there are no possible rationales left to the survivors do they finally clue in and contemplate an alternative. It has to burn all the way down, every time.
Do you have any actual historical examples of this other than Atlas Shrugged?
Re: (Score:2)
Your buddy was probably trying to point out to you that a lot of things raising in price aren't doing so in line with inflation and that the government hasn't been printing money at a different rate than usual.
It's a lot easier to justify raising your prices 3x when there's 6% inflation, but anyone with basic math skills can see those don't equate
Re: (Score:2)
Since Covid we have printed way fucking more money than usual. Currently adding $3 trillion per year to the national debt. That is not usual at all.
And no he wasn't,saying any such thing. He literally was saying the only cause of rising prices was corporate greed because suddenly and inexplicably every company simultaneously raised their prices to consumers dramatically at the same time.
Washington DC has become a cesspool (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh fuck no (Score:2)
Man... I should update my CV. (Score:2)
Don't live in the US, but still, that sort of a cash dump into the industry would have global implications and really boost the demand for people who have experience with AI.
Depends on the Details -- Money to What, Exact? (Score:2)
I would invest that money into the kinds of automation technologies and upgrades to enhance U.S. manufacturing capabilities. This should be focused on AI and robotics. I would also focus on AI and robotics in the Defense Industry. We do not want to loose that arms race.
Re: (Score:2)
I would invest that money into the kinds of automation technologies and upgrades to enhance U.S. manufacturing capabilities. This should be focused on AI and robotics. I would also focus on AI and robotics in the Defense Industry. We do not want to loose that arms race.
Don't worry, Sam Altman will be along shortly to direct the funds. He was hired as one of the primary government advisors for AI recently. Sigh.
where will that money come from? (Score:2)
Is there an AI bubble? (Score:2)
Brilliant move (Score:2)
If nothing else can kill AI, this certainly will.
Just throw it on the heap with Solyndra.
the field does not need money (Score:1)
Private sector is already pouring crapload of money into it.
Re:yo fucktards (Score:4, Informative)
that is more money then what NASA gets and atleast i get to see a rocket launch. which one of these senators has investments in nvidia.
A) All of them.
B) NVIDIA has invested heavily in them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
another part that really irks me is that they also get to take advantage of the fact that they are voting to give handouts to companies to invest in those companies, i.e. insider trading, and for them it is perfectly legal, whilst for you and I, it would be illegal as hell.
Gotta have money to make money. Or you gotta cozy up to money, suck it's genitals, lick it's backside, eat its shit, and bask in its maleficence if you want to make money. Guess which route our elected officials chose?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have little interest in funding a new race to the moon or Mars. The Webb telescope cost $10 billion. That was money well spent. So was Hubble. Spend the money on probes and unmanned exploration for a few generations, worry about the electric infrastructure and battery development for a real EV roll out. These are important things. funding money to AI? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
thats just like your opinion, man
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if they gave that money to NASA we would get back to the Moon quicker? Maybe they would foster improved research in AI as part of the automated control systems they will need in that future? Maybe we would be on Mars safer/sooner?
NASA funding has turned into a slush fund for congressional districts with perpetual cost plus contracting and bullshit. I guarantee you 32B tossed at NASA would end up funneled straight to the old contractors for something as ridiculous as the SLS, but on a *MUCH* larger scale, with an even longer wait to see anything resembling results.
Re: (Score:2)
yes you are right, the 32 bil for Al will totally not go to same contractors
Re: (Score:2)
yes you are right, the 32 bil for Al will totally not go to same contractors
Probably not the same contractors, but I'll bet a lot of it will go to the same districts.
Re: (Score:2)
that is more money then what NASA gets and atleast i get to see a rocket launch.
NASA's annual budget for 2023 was $25.4 billion, and this is asking for $32 billion over three years. So this is roughly 40% of NASA's budget.
Re: (Score:2)
This is $32 billion to start. Then they will declare AI a national security issue and it'll skyrocket in cost.
And we get nothing for it.
NASA at least sends stuff to space and sends back pretty pictures.
Timeline fuzzy. (Score:2)
This is $32 billion to start. Then they will declare AI a national security issue and it'll skyrocket in cost.
And we get nothing for it.
NASA at least sends stuff to space and sends back pretty pictures.
I would expect the 32Bs to go to some industrious shit-talkers, who will disappear it in a span of about a year, maybe a little more, then be back on the government's doorstep saying, "That 32B was a nice appetizer, but if we really wanna do something here we're gonna need some real money." You say national security, I say, "Think of the children!"
Re: (Score:2)
Prove Rand's definition of GOF is more accepted then Fauci's in the field, or kiss my rancid Ivermectin-covered mask pile!