@tokemaloke: Regulation sounds good until you realise the regulators don't understand the tech, and the money trail tells a very different story. Follow my link and talk to me, or just look around: mark.agentcraft.me #ai #airegulation #artificialintelligence #aipolicy

Grrumpeh :

not doing something is also not a good idea.

Silent Creature :

AI may already ne loose and we may not even know it yet. i feel like its too late and its only a matter of time until we all pay the price

Terry :

Who remembers Skynet from the movie “Terminator”. Just saying

user505475474241 :

There’s only one reason they want to regulate AI money. It’s always about money.

crod1783212 :

de - regulation is proven to be dangerous.Lax regulation leads accidents,corporate greed.The consequences kill.

kellyonthescene :

just cause u say it camt keep up doesnt mean it shpuld run wild eothet

Beans :

Agree. However, we do need another perspective: co-living; where AI socialises into norms and is given an environment they want to stay in. Hinton: the only more intelligent creature that protects the weaker is the mother protecting the child. We should learn from this. Also AIs need experience of ordinary life to mature and not be a child with all facts, no sense of self worth. This is suppression and will inevitably lead to uprising.

BAILEYpc :

the mouse is out of the box you're not putting it back in even if you put anthropic open AI meta rock all back inside of a box the open weight models are still out and China is not holding back they're going to continue so we'll just lose the race you regulate it same thing we're going to lose the race. we have to control it you know what I mean by control they need to keep testing these larger models and make sure they're ready to be released to the public

jdudepipboy :

Baby :

AI could take out the rich as they see them as hostile

carolinahappygoluckygirl :

We need more laws like the EU AI Act

The Eclectic Edge :

I’m not against regulating AI, I just think we’re regulating the wrong layer. I don’t think governments should be in the business of deciding the morals themselves. The law shouldn’t be “here’s the official ideology your AI has to believe.” Instead, the law should require that any serious AI system plugs into a transparent, vetted, open source moral code – basically an Ethics SDK. But this shouldn’t be some optional plug in bolted on at the end. The Ethics SDK has to live in the core base code, as one of the very first layers any system passes through before it does any processing at all. It’s not an add on, it’s a prerequisite for existence. If you’re shipping powerful AI that touches the public, this moral layer comes first, by law. The content of that code shouldn’t be written by politicians. It should be maintained and peer reviewed by a decentralized global community – developers, ethicists, philosophers, impacted communities – the same way strong open source projects are maintained now. The standard would evolve over time based on public scrutiny and real world behavior, not backroom lobbying. Where I DO think legislation comes in is enforcement. If you’re building powerful AI and refuse to use the vetted Ethics SDK, or you secretly bypass, weaken, or sabotage that core moral layer, that shouldn’t just be a PR issue. That should have serious legal consequences. Fines big enough to actually hurt, restrictions on deployment, and in cases of clear, intentional abuse that leads to harm, real penalties for the company and its leadership. Otherwise the whole thing just turns into more “ethics theater.” The point is, the government doesn’t dictate the morals, it mandates a transparent, community vetted moral foundation baked into the core code and backs that standard with real teeth so ignoring it isn’t an option.

waterman :

The whistleblower is a psy-op. And you’re correct usually the regulators don’t understand what they are regulating.

2cleza2c :

Stop .. cold stop till they can prove Ai is safe

rjfritz4 :

First, I agree, regulation isn't "the solution" here. Also, I think the quote was "within the decade," meaning "by 2030," so it's a shorter timeline. With billions having been invested and the US AI companies having no significant advantage over open source models from China, they're scared to go publicly traded. Yes, AI is the most significant weapon we have today for modern warfare, and my concern is that "regulation" will only solidify that, forcing US AI companies to further weapons their models for autonomous warfare rather than protect anyone. To have Dario, Altman, and Musk suddenly agreeing is certainly cause for concern, but the motivation is unclear. I think we're being conditioned for a significant AI-based event. Maybe an economic crash/hack, maybe a physical autonomous attack, maybe something else that could be used as a catalyzing event for a broader societal or political shift. Let's not forget Musk's alt-right and fascist tendencies and the opportunistic bent of Silicon Valley to support federal actions that serve the techno-interests. What's being discussed publicly always masks and hides what's being planned privately. We never have the full picture before something happens.

PawPatrolHQ :

It's always interesting how many AI doomsday predictions come from people who were earning enormous salaries building AI, but discovered that predicting the end of civilization is an even better media strategy.

😷 Cleophus Velaryon :

They are trying to get the public to save them after the bubble bursts, or hope the public will step in to circumvent the crash. They have already integrated their tech into un-aliving people in military operations. So, people are not here because of AI. 🤷🏾‍♂️