Tech leaders meet to discuss regulation of AI
Tech industry leaders recently gathered at a closed Senate forum to advocate for a balanced regulatory framework that promotes both innovation and safety in artificial intelligence (AI).
The bipartisan AI Insight Forum, convened by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, brought together top executives from leading tech companies, including:
- Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg
- OpenAI CEO Sam Altman
- Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella
- Nvidia president Jensen Huang
- Google CEO Sundar Pichai
- X chair Elon Musk
Tech leaders talked about AI's regulation
While the public and media were excluded from the discussion, some participants shared their insights on the need for a comprehensive approach to AI regulation. Zuckerberg emphasized the importance of collaboration between policymakers, academics, civil society, and industry to maximize AI's benefits while minimizing risks.
He highlighted Meta's commitment to integrating safeguards into its generative AI models and stressed the twin issues of safety and access in AI development.
Musk, on the other hand, called for the establishment of a federal AI oversight agency to prevent unchecked AI product development. Other tech leaders echoed his sentiment, stressing the need for regulation to ensure the responsible use of AI technology. OpenAI’s Altman expressed optimism about policymakers' intentions to do what's right.
Schumer, who previously urged accelerated AI regulation, underscored the significance of the forum as an opportunity to understand AI's complexities and cautioned against hasty rulemaking.
However, not everyone was pleased with the closed nature of the forum. Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized it, seeing it as a means for tech giants to influence policies, while concerns about regulatory capture emerged, with larger tech companies advocating for regulations that could potentially disadvantage smaller players in the AI field.
Read also: Elon Musk enters the AI industry with xAI.
Should AI be regulated?
The question of whether AI should be regulated is a complex one, and there are arguments both for and against regulation. There are some potential pros and cons to be considered.
The pros of regulation
- Ensuring safety and ethical use: Regulation can help ensure that AI is developed and used in ways that prioritize safety and ethical considerations. This could include guidelines for testing and deploying AI systems, as well as requirements for transparency and explainability in AI decision-making processes
- Preventing job displacement: Regulation could help prevent the displacement of human workers by AI systems, particularly in industries where automation poses a significant threat to employment. By requiring certain jobs to be performed by humans or setting standards for AI-assisted work, regulators could help protect worker rights and mitigate the negative impacts of technological unemployment
- Addressing privacy concerns: AI systems often rely on vast amounts of personal data to function effectively, which raises serious privacy concerns. Regulation could help ensure that user data is handled responsibly and that individuals have control over their personal information
- Promoting competition: Regulation could help promote competition in the AI industry by establishing common standards and guidelines that all players must follow. This could encourage innovation and prevent dominant firms from exploiting their market position to stifle competition
Cons of regulation
- Stifling innovation: Overly restrictive regulations could limit the potential benefits of AI by stifling innovation and discouraging investment in research and development. AI is a rapidly evolving field, and regulatory frameworks may struggle to keep pace with new developments
- Difficulty in defining harmful AI: It can be challenging to define what constitutes "harmful" AI, as this can vary depending on cultural norms, ethical considerations, and societal values. Regulators may struggle to identify and prohibit harmful AI applications without also limiting the beneficial uses of the technology
- Enforcement difficulties: Effectively enforcing AI regulations may prove difficult due to the complexity of the technology and the lack of qualified personnel or resources available to regulatory agencies
- Unintended consequences: Well-intentioned regulations could have unintended consequences, such as driving AI research underground or encouraging companies to relocate to jurisdictions with more lenient rules
While there are valid arguments both for and against regulating AI, it is essential to consider the potential risks and benefits of this technology carefully.
The week's discussions on AI regulation on the other hand have made it clear that momentum is building in the United States towards effective governance of AI. Congressional hearings and voluntary commitments from AI companies to develop AI responsibly are taking center stage.
As we move forward, public engagement and transparency in crafting regulations will remain key concerns for the future of AI policy.
Now you: Do you think AI is the future or an overhyped technology?
Advertisement
Missing from the “story”: Ukraine’s agreement to never use Starlink for military purposes. This is why.
Ghacks quality is AI driven and very poor these days since AI is really artificial stupidity.
“Elon Musk biographer Walter Isaacson forced to ‘clarify’ book’s account of Starlink incident in Ukraine War
“To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war.”
https://nypost.com/2023/09/11/elon-musk-biographer-walter-isaacson-corrects-detail-about-starlink-in-ukraine/
I posted above comment to:
https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/08/elon-musk-turned-off-starlink-during-ukranian-offence/
Not to the following article about Geforce where I currently also can see it published:
https://www.ghacks.net/2023/08/29/how-to-fix-geforce-experience-error-code-0x0003/
Well, using Brave, I can see Llama 2 being decent, but it is still not great?
All these AI stuff seems more like a ‘toy’ than anything special, I mean, it is good for some stuff like translations or asking quick questions but not for asking anything important.
The problem is Brave made it mostly for summarizing websites and all that, but all these Big tech controlled stuff, won’t summarize articles it doesn’t agree with, so it is also useless in many situations where you just want it to give you a quick summarization, and then it starts throwing you little ‘speeches’ about how it doesn’t agree with it and then it never summarizes anything, but give you all the 30 paragraphs reasons why the article is wrong, like if I am asking it what it thinks.
SO all this AI is mostly a toy, but Facebook with all the power they have will be able to get so much data from people, it can ‘train’ or better say, write algorithms that will get better with time.
But It is not intelligence, it is really not intelligence all these AI technology.
Article Title: Tech leaders meet to discuss regulation of AI
Article URL: [https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/14/artificial-intelligence-regulation-tech-leaders/]
—
The eternal problematic of regulating, here applied to AI. Should regulations (interventionism) have interfered in the course of mankind ever since Adam and Eve where would we be now? Should spirituality, morality, ethics never have interfered where would we be now? I truly have always believed that the only possible consensus between ethics and freedom is that of individuals’ own consciousness.
Off-topic : Musk’s beard looks like a wound, AI-Human hand-shake is a quite nice pic :)
Haha, oh dear, Tom.
I thought that the comments system issue where comments shows up under a totally different article was fixed. But seeing your comment here, the “error” is clearly still active. Hopefully it is sorted as soon as possible.
Article Title: Tech leaders meet to discuss regulation of AI
Article URL: [https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/14/artificial-intelligence-regulation-tech-leaders/]
—
Hi Karl :) Well, let’s remain positive and see the good sides : one’s comment appearing within different articles (the one it was written form and for, another unrelated one) brings ubiquity to that comment : say it once and it’s published twice, double your pleasure and double your fun (“with double-mint, double-mint gum” and old ad!). Let’s forget the complications and inherited misunderstandings it leads to. Not sure the fun is worth the complications though. Which is why, with a few others here, I include Article Title & URL with comment, to ease a bit the pain.
This said, I’m trying to find a logic key which would explain the mic-mac. One thing is sure : comments appearing twice keep the same comment number.
For instance my comment to which you replied just above is originally :
[https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/14/artificial-intelligence-regulation-tech-leaders/#comment-4573676]
It then got duplicated to :
[https://www.ghacks.net/2023/08/29/how-to-fix-geforce-experience-error-code-0x0003/#comment-4573676]
Same comment number, which let’s me imagine comments are defined by their number as before but now dissociated in a way from their full path : that’s where something is broken, as i see it.
First amused me, then bothered, annoyed (I took some holidays to lower the pressure), then triggered curiosity.
I’m putting our best detectives on the affair, stay tuned.
Hehe, yes indeed, staying positive is what we should do. Good comes for those who wait, as the old saying goes. Hopefully true for this as well.
Interesting that the comments number stays the same, I noted that one thing is added to the duplicated comment in the URL, an error code, the following: “error-code-0x0003”.
Not useful for us, but hopefully for the developers (if there are any?), that perhaps will be able to sort this comments error out. Or our detectives, I hope they work hard on this as we speak ;).
Cheers and have a great weekend!
Whoops, my bad. I just now realized that the error I saw in your example URL (error-code-0x0003) was part of the linked article title and generated by Geforce! Oh dear! Why did I try to make it more confusing than it already is lol!
Original comment:
https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/08/elon-musk-turned-off-starlink-during-ukranian-offence/#comment-4573788
Duplicate:
https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/14/iphone-12-radiation-levels-are-too-high/#comment-4573788
Article Title: Tech leaders meet to discuss regulation of AI
Article URL: [https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/14/artificial-intelligence-regulation-tech-leaders/]
—
@Karl, you write,
“I noted that one thing is added to the duplicated comment in the URL, an error code, the following: “error-code-0x0003”.”
I haven’t noticed that up to now but indeed brings an element to those who are actually trying to resolve the issue.
I do hope that Softonic engineers are working on fixing this issue, which may be more complicated than we can imagine. Anything to do with databases can become a nightmare, especially when the database remains accessed while being repaired, so to say.
P.S. My comment about remaining positive was, in this context, sarcastic. Your literal interpretation could mean you are, factually, more inclined to positiveness than I am myself : maybe a lesson of life for me :)
Have a nice, happy, sunny weekend as well :)
Correct: AI is certainly overhyped, it’s also advertised by some shady individuals. It’s can also be misused to write poor quality articles or fake your homework.
https://wordpress.com/support/post-vs-page/
https://wordpress.com/support/restore/
16 September 2023, this website is still experiencing issues with posts erroneously appearing in the wrong threads. There are even duplicates of the exact same post ID within the same page in some places.
Clerical error “[It] can also be misused …” you just can’t get the staff nowadays.
Obviously [#comment-4573795] was originally posted within [/2023/09/14/artificial-intelligence-regulation-tech-leaders/]. However, it has appeared misplaced within several threads.
Including the following:
[/2023/09/15/redmi-note-13-specs-release-date-and-more/]
[/2023/08/29/how-to-fix-geforce-experience-error-code-0x0003]
“How much radiation is dangerous?
Ionizing radiation, such as X-rays and gamma rays, is more energetic and potentially harmful. Exposure to doses greater than 1,000 millisieverts (mSv) in a short period can increase the risk of immediate health effects.
Above about 100 mSv, the risk of long-term health effects, such as cancer, increases with the dose.”
This ban is about NON-ionizing radiation limits, because there is too much radio wave power from the iphone. This has nothing to do with the much more dangerous ionizing radiations like X-rays, that are obviously not emitted at all by mobile phones. I invite you to correct your article.
“Aaro.mil makes history as the first official UFO website”
I wonder if it’s just smelly crowdsourcing for the spotting of chinese balloons or whatever paranoia they’re trying to instigate, or if they are also intentionally trying to look stupid enough to look for alien spaceships, for whatever reason. Maybe trying to look cute, instead of among the worst butchers of history ?
“The tech titan’s defense”
“Whether he provides a clear explanation or justifies his actions”
“the moral compass”
You take it for granted that this company should agree being a military communications provider on a war zone, and so directly so that his network would be used to control armed drones charged with explosives rushing to their targets.
You don’t need to repeat here everything you read in the mainstream press without thinking twice about it. You’re not just pointing interestingly that his company is more involved in the war that one may think at first and that this power is worrying, you’re also declaring your own support for a side in an imperialist killfest, blaming him for not participating enough in the bloodshed.
Now your article is unclear on how this company could be aware that its network is used for such military actions at a given time, which has implications of its own.
Reading other sources on that quickly, it seems that the company was: explicitly asked ; to extend its network geographically ; for a military attack ; at a time when there was no war but with the purpose of triggering it, if I understood well. You have to be joking if you’re crying about that not happening at that time. But today you have your war, be happy.