logoalt Hacker News

andsoitislast Saturday at 11:59 PM7 repliesview on HN

In a parallel universe where we have Biden (or Democratic Party) administration, how different do you think the regulations / approach would be for this fast moving and unpredictable technology?


Replies

digitaltreesyesterday at 1:41 AM

It’s hard not to see this ban as being motivated by retribution for refusing to use the models for spying and autonomous warfare.

hilariouslyyesterday at 1:48 AM

Probably using the rule of law in some way? Talking about it in public? Legislating? You know... government type stuff?

ceejayozyesterday at 12:14 AM

They at least wouldn't depend on how extensively you publicly glaze the President.

b--lyesterday at 6:24 AM

There is not a single chance this would have happened under that admin. Not one single chance.

SpicyLemonZestyesterday at 12:25 AM

They probably would have been in line with Executive Order 14110, the Biden administration's detailed description of a principled approach to regulation of the AI industry. It would have been aligned with the Trump administration's stated goals as well, but a coalition of rich VCs successfully bribed him to rescind it as one of his first acts in office, because the primary principle of Trumpist government is that people who pay Donald Trump a lot of money get what they want.

softwaredougyesterday at 3:07 AM

It doesn’t really matter what party does it

The ideal case is a statutory agency with regulatory authority that sets very clear standards for what model capabilities can and cannot release. Those are set ahead of time and well known by frontier model providers.

Most normal regulations are managed through the administrative procedures act process. That’s a legal requirement that involves deliberation and public comment.

I’d argue you could pretty easily enumerate most capabilities that have been obvious concerns for a while. For example, cyber security.

This structure can last decades and reassure players they can operate in the market without rules changing suddenly without warning.

Some kind of sudden, temporary action like this export control tool is legally fragile. Even if sometimes necessary in exceptional cases. But if the administration sees this as a permanent way of working, they won’t be helping anyone (but maybe themselves through grift).

If the administration truly cares about functional regulation (which maybe they don’t) they need a sturdier legal structure that lasts past Trump. Not flimsy edicts that change with the wind

show 1 reply