396
Bernie Sanders tells OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta to pause AI development or face Senate action (www.techspot.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 month ago (28 children)

That cliche is the worst. If applied to anything else you can see how absurd it is. Like NFTs aren't going anywhere, crime isn't going anywhere, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (27 children)

    Except NFTs were never used to nearly even close to the same amount as AI, it had much less usecases and the one that did "catch on" was idiotic.

    Crime is a symptom of a problem, not a technological advancement, apples and oranges.

    AI the tool is never going away in the same way the internet is never going away. (Barring our entire civilization collapses and we lose knowledge/connectivity/life lmao)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (26 children)

    "AI is never going away" neither did NFTs nor crime, nor anything else really. We should try to stop these awful companies from doing awful things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    The point of the "its not going away" comment is because a shocking number of people think the solution to AI is to, I dunno, delete it.

    As a technology, it is out in the world. It isn't going away any more than electricity or the internet. So any solutions to the real problems with AI that are essentially "make it go away" are essentially nonsense. Might as well propose wishing it away with a genie.

    "It's not going away" is not equivalent to "there's nothing we can do to solve the problems"; it just means that the solution has to be in a framework where it is implemented alongside AI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (20 children)

    That is a solution, make it very unappealing to use it. If it's clearly a crime, most people don't have the hardware to do it, and others don't have the motivation, it'd help a lot. And again, NFTs

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    Most people do have the hardware to run them. Maybe not super high end ones but middle of the road ones.

    Again, the solution won't ever be "no more AI". The solution will be regulation, social safety nets, taxation, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (18 children)

    They are crimes, they stole their data, and the ones people can run locally still are a part of those crime rings. Plus the ones that can run locally aren't very good, not that the larger ones are too great either

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    What court case are you referring to?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (16 children)

    What court case did I bring up?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (15 children)

    How do you determine that a crime has been committed without a court case?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (14 children)

    Same way we always do? look at what happened, and see that a crime happened

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (13 children)

    That breathtakingly wrong. Yikes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (12 children)

    Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (11 children)

    Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore??

    You can't just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

    you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it's a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it's not magically not a crime if they aren't sued over it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (9 children)

    So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief?

    Think this through.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol

    I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything.

    I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working.

    Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that's up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children)

    If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence.

    Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Violation of copyright/piracy :P Among many many many other crimes. I'll take the word of the US copyright office who says that it is not fair use over your word.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Make your case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    The US copyright office wrote up a pretty large paper pointing out it's piracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Source?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    I agree?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Then what's the point of saying that line? It's a pointless line that means to put down any solution to the problem saying "well, actually, it'll never go away!" instead of thinking about how one could drastically reduce the harm by trying to make it go away anyways

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •