UK and US Refuse To Sign International AI Declaration (bbc.com) 52
The United States and Britain have declined to sign an international AI declaration at a Paris summit on Tuesday, after U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance warned against over-regulation of the technology. The declaration, backed by France, China and India, calls for an "open, inclusive and ethical" approach to AI development.
Vance told the AI Action Summit that excessive rules could "kill a transformative industry just as it's taking off" and urged prioritizing "pro-growth AI policies" over safety measures. French President Emmanuel Macron defended the need for regulation, saying: "We need these rules for AI to move forward." The summit brought together policymakers and executives to address AI's economic benefits and potential risks amid growing U.S.-European trade tensions.
Vance told the AI Action Summit that excessive rules could "kill a transformative industry just as it's taking off" and urged prioritizing "pro-growth AI policies" over safety measures. French President Emmanuel Macron defended the need for regulation, saying: "We need these rules for AI to move forward." The summit brought together policymakers and executives to address AI's economic benefits and potential risks amid growing U.S.-European trade tensions.
National policy (Score:2, Insightful)
If your nation's policy makers appear to be in alignment with the current American administration, you should probably start asking questions. Maybe in this case it's appropriate... but it's a big red flag to be investigated.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Or in case of AI, if your nation's policy is aligned with France, you should probably start looking into criminal prosecution proceedings of whoever is involved on either espionage or treason charges.
Because even after Macron allowed Germans to kick Breton to the curb in an utterly unprecedented move within EU in the wake of him single handedly destroying EU's AI industry, his insanity/fascism/elitism/anti-humanism still brands the French bureaucracy that headlined this particular "declaration".
Especially s
Which questions? (Score:3, Insightful)
If your nation's policy makers appear to be in alignment with the current American administration, you should probably start asking questions. Maybe in this case it's appropriate... but it's a big red flag to be investigated.
Which questions would those be?
I'm not a big fan of fear and uncertainty. What ethical or moral questiont specifically should be asked in this situation?
In my career I had one big ethical rule, which was that I wouldn't work on weapons. I figured everything else was OK and advancing technology would raise the standard of living and promote wealth across the globe.
(This was before spam, hacking, and enshittification generally. Yes, this was before the first spamming of usenet by a couple of lawyers who felt
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you limiting this to moral or ethical questions?
As far as questions in general:
1. Is it bullshit?
2. If it is bullshit, what harms are caused by promoting it?
3. If it isn't bullshit, is it positive? Does it provide tools what are universally positive or neutral in effect? What can be done to reduce the negatives?
4. Will we upend society by adopting these technologies? If so, what are the consequences? Can we change our ent
Re: (Score:2)
Also the reasons for refusing the agreement were given by the vice president said pro-growth AI policies should take priority over safety. Which is utterly ridiculous. He's basically saying money is more important than safety. I have no idea why the UK is going along with that bullshit though, unless they're trying to suck up to Trump.
But then, he's the protege of Peter Thiel, and likely highly pro-tech-bro, who are all infatuated with AI, making money, and screwing up governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Also the reasons for refusing the agreement were given by the vice president said pro-growth AI policies should take priority over safety. Which is utterly ridiculous/
You should probably read the essay "Worse is better".
What he's trying to say is that he will have his "product" out first, will dominate the market and so will override your opinion anyway. It's not exactly the best ethical position, but as long as he doesn't accidentally wipe out humanity whilst doing it it's quite a practical opinion. If he does wipe out humanity then it will no longer be his problem, so why should he care?
Re: (Score:2)
So... apropos of your post, what questions should we be asking?
An example of what kind of ethical things we "should" be asking:
problems with this include
1
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL Macron basically admitted the other day the EU does not have an AI industry. This was nothing but an attempt to sabotage market leaders politically to give them time to catch up.
Thank God Almighty a plurality of US voters finally understood the New World Order to be exactly what it is a plot to give away US leadership a few cards at a time hand after hand so a new super-national organizing body can take over that is not bound by those pesky constitutional protections we have.
When the EU speaks, just sa
Re: (Score:3)
the New World Order to be exactly what it is a plot to give away US leadership a few cards at a time hand after hand so a new super-national organizing body can take over
The US still rules the US. The whole world doesn't need to be ruled by the US. Though it seems like you're indirectly saying this. The point of cooperating with other countries helps preserve sovereignty by agreeing to help each other out with things that threaten it.
The reason it doesn't seem that way to you likely means that the US is the threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the guy at the top can't help but say "strong", "strongly", "stronger", etc. He LOVES that word, he uses it even more than even Mussolini. He is unilaterally declaring all sorts of weird shit, like he's going to take over Gaza, Greenland, Panama, and wants also to take Canada. I would not consider anyone outside the US to be overreacting if they were concerned about US being a threat.
Re: (Score:3)
They lost all credibility (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They lost all credibility (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They lost all credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
No-one has to add a cookie warning to their website. They can choose not to sell information on their visitors' browsing habits to 200 "partners" and not need cookies. It's disappointing, albeit sadly predictable, that very few do choose that path.
The Cookie Monster (Score:2)
No-one has to add a cookie warning to their website. They can choose not to sell information on their visitors' browsing habits to 200 "partners" and not need cookies. It's disappointing, albeit sadly predictable, that very few do choose that path.
The fucking Cookie Monster. Not even Vegas thought to bet on that shit haunting us in adulthood.
Re: (Score:2)
You only need a notice for essential cookies, not a consent form. You can ensure customers know the details of the essential cookies by placing the notice on the login form itself.
Only non-essential cookies unrelated to functionality require the actual opt-in/opt-out form that's pissing off half the Internet. And you can always, you know, just forego having those non-essential cookies.
Re: They lost all credibility (Score:3)
Re:They lost all credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
The Disease of Greed. (Score:2)
Why is it "fascinating", about observing the unending Disease of Greed? It's been plaguing mankind for thousands of years. Literally. It's the one disease that has outlasted time. The one disease that will hopefully perish when we humans finally perish. The one disease we hope to not spread to other planets.
We're so infected by the disease that we will likely pull something from the sands of time that will prove beyond a doubt that we humans were stupid enough to damn near extinct ourselves before. May
Re: (Score:2)
The one disease that will hopefully perish when we humans finally perish.
No chance. There are animal hoarders too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:They lost all credibility (Score:4, Informative)
LOL way to go not having a clue about history. The cookie walls have nothing to do with the French. The ePD was signed in by the EU and was a multi-lateral program with shitty unintended consequences. What you can blame the French for is that the CNIL has so far been the only group to attempt to make the cookie wall illegal but that was struck down by the Council of State.
Additionally the world doesn't need to comply. The companies or groups subject to EU policy must comply and it is sufficient to geofence meaning most of the world doesn't see the cookie wall even when companies do implement it. Literally the only ones who have tried to help deal with your issue have been the French.
With friends like you, who needs enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
France and their stupid CNIL was solely responsible for the entire world having to add that stupid cookie warning
Wrong. This is part of the Europe GDPR. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are the bodies that passed the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR.
Related (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Marc Andreessen talking to Joe Rogan about AI regulation
Re: (Score:2)
>>Given the parties involved, I assume "safety" means ensuring the AI doesn't say anything to hurt anyone's feelings.
You think France, China and India care about hurting anyone's feelings?
Hmm ... (Score:5, Funny)
The declaration, backed by France, China and India, calls for an "open, inclusive and ethical" approach to AI development.
So the US and UK are in favour of a "closed, exclusive and un-ethical" approach to AI development? Interesting ....
Re: (Score:2)
the US and UK are in favour of a "closed, exclusive and un-ethical" approach to AI development?
The word you're looking for is commercialized. And yes, they want it and so do Chinese companies. I realize that unethical isn't required but some hypothetical shareholder will argue that it's part of their fiduciary duty to be unethical. So they'll just go ahead and be unethical.
Re: (Score:2)
the US and UK are in favour of a "closed, exclusive and un-ethical" approach to AI development?
The word you're looking for is commercialized. And yes, they want it and so do Chinese companies.
One of them just open sourced a top tier AI model. As long as people keep doing that any dreams Sam Altman and the likes of him have of an AI oligopoly will evaporate.
No - they don't want China to hobble everyone (Score:3)
Do you seriously think China would be constrained by such an agreement?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you seriously think China would be constrained by such an agreement?
And therefore we must ensure all AI is under the exclusive control of American billionaire tech oligarch under the fatherly overwatch of Donald Trump? What you fail to facto into your reasoning is that I distrust American billionaire tech oligarchs every bit as much as CCP functionaries.
All AI? (Score:2)
Spot the false dichotomy here?
If the US signs up to this agreement, China will be unconstrained in practice.
If the US doesn't sign up, both China and the US will be unconstrained. On the whole that's a better place, though I agree it not wildly inspiring. On the whole, it's probable that US tech bros will do less bad things and will be less totally aligned with their country's military / political elite. And it will be better if the West has access to all the toys...
Re: (Score:2)
On the whole, it's probable that US tech bros will do less bad things and will be less totally aligned with their country's military / political elite.
Under a wannabe fascist dictator like Donald Trump? I'm not holding my breath.
And it will be better if the West has access to all the toys...
West? LoL!! You mean under the exclusive control of American Tech Oligarchs? I don't think so.
Re: (Score:3)
On the whole, it's probable that US tech bros will do less bad things and will be less totally aligned with their country's military / political elite.
Just who do you think is running the show in DC today? That dottering old fool who applies his own bronzer every day and still manages to miss his ears so that he looks absolutely ridiculous, or the unelected tech broligarchs who were in the first row behind him while taking the oath of office?
Think about it: his largest donor to his campaign is a tech bro who owns an AI company and is currently (and quite possibly illegally) rooting around through the federal government unilaterally making shitty decision
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand. If China sign it but aren't constrained by it, why would the USA be constrained by it if they signed it? It's a non-binding commitment in the first place. All it does is put out a message of intent, a bit of mood music stating the intended direction of travel. It doesn't actually commit anyone to anything. As such, what exactly is the problem with signing it?
Messaging is important even if it's just an empty gesture. It may (or may not) make any AI Companies think twice before acting unet
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand. If China sign it but aren't constrained by it, why would the USA be constrained by it if they signed it?
Because Western companies will be open to public scrutiny and thus public criticism for any breaches, whereas the dictatorship of China will ensure that its companies don't have any such problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Tthere is nothing in it to breach. It's simply a declaration of intent, not a set of constraints. By refusing to sign it The USA and UK have given the impression that they don't care about it. And public criticism will occur anyway if any Company behaves unethically, Chinese Companies included. If regulatory agencies choose not to hold Companies to a set of rules public complaint is mostly irrelevant. Is Trump's Government likely to care any more than China's about that? It's the optics of this that look ba
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you implying that Chinese government is motivated by "open, inclusive and ethical" approach here?
Once again I can only repeat that I distrust American billionaire tech oligarchs every bit as much as CCP functionaries and, furthermore, whataboutism is a logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that VP Vance is taking his marching orders from Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, this should surprise exactly nobody.
MAGA translation (Score:4, Insightful)
'Vance told the AI Action Summit that excessive rules could "kill a transformative industry just as it's taking off"...' ...and by transformative he means killing off the human race, and by "just as it's taking off" he means beginning by killing MAGA's political enemies. Also, by excessive rules he means anything MAGA doesn't like.
As per usual, Republican ethics are entirely self-interest driven.
Re: (Score:2)
That's too many long words for a MAGA translation. It would be more like: "RULES BAD. MONEY GOOD."
Re: MAGA translation (Score:2, Insightful)
Kill off the human race? Seriously? You really do buy into your own hysteria don't you? Though it doesn't matter at this point given you already torched your credibility last week in one of your replies to me.
Re: (Score:1)
They are pissed right now because small parts of the government are being audited. They claim this is "unconstitutional". Ie... not serious people at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Why hasn't Musk banned Vance and Trump from travelling yet? It seems like a good cost saving measure to replace them with a pre-recorded message of "Regulation bad, government bad, we will apply tariffs to you for something, have a nice day." And presumably people would have a nice day if they didn't need to meet either of these people.
It's a win for literally everyone including America who get their message across clearly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Gruesome Twosome of Dying Empires (Score:1, Interesting)
Iraq War: US and UK.
Global Financial Crisis from turning Wall St and City of London into casinos: US and UK.
Brexit: UK
Trump: US
Over, and over again, the last attempts to preserve feudalism and concentrated control of all money and power: it's the last two empires.
I won't live to see them over, but I do get to watch them shrink, slowly but surely.
of course the USofA & England refuses to sign (Score:2)
China will feel constrained by the agreement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? They'll carry on regardless, whilst the EU pretends it's being ethical, but it's actually just lacking innovation.
Re: (Score:1)