• arc99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    The easiest way to regulate the AI industry - and any industry for that matter - is to make the board personally liable for any crimes committed by their product. Not liable in a corporate sense with a fine and a slap on the wrist, when their AI hacks into a water reservoir and causes 500 million of flood damage, but in a 20 years in federal prison sense. Same goes for self driving cars, or any other computer, machinery or combination thereof where humans are placing trust in its safe and legal operation. There should be a corporate negligence law of sorts that says if a company is not following the law, industry best practice, including auditing and implementation of all safeguards, safety and other mitigations then they are exposed to criminal liability.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Here’s my idea: We arrest and execute all AI executives and lead developers, going by their definition of danger. Non-lead devs: 35 years in prison; AI boosters: 20 years in prison; both forced to only consume AI generated slop, the only place where we still temporarily allow the technology.

    • kalleboo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      both forced to only consume AI generated slop

      Let’s force them to eat food that looks like the food does on the AI generated menus, with the weird tire shrimp and all

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      only consume AI generated slop, the only place where we still temporarily allow the technology.

      jfc full on torture.

      maybe for musk and altman lol

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    9 hours ago

    is it just me, or is 20 years for a rogue nuclear weapon seem a bit light?

    • dumnezero@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      That would be interesting, as it’s headed in the direction of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”, but those tend to be international standards, and the US regime trying to attack and destroy these courts.

  • 0x0@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 hours ago

    How about you propose life without parole for the CEOs, Bernie boy?

  • ∃∀λ@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    These AI labs shouldn’t be private profit-seeking corporations. They should be more like publicly-funded nonprofit research institutions like Fermilab or something. It doesn’t seem possible to even talk about the labs without feeling like you’re increasing their value. That’s a problem. It’s also a problem that the research and announcements from the labs sound like publicity stunts. It’s hard to tell what’s genuine and what’s buzz for the press. There’s this arms race between the labs that’s negatively affecting seemingly everything. This should all just be put to an end. Step on the brakes. I don’t claim to know how to do that when the Constitution makes private property sacred, but, you know, just throwing the idea out there… The Constitution can always be changed.

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    We can’t even punish blatantly obvious theft and bribery in our own government, at this point, why bother with another law?

    I like Bernie, but he seems so quaint now compared to what he is up against. Good luck guy

    • IamMoonPie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I’ve been trying to figure out why he’s been— bothering me so much lately and you put it into words so perfectly. He’s to quaint for this world now.

  • spacegoat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    There are people facing weed sentences with harsher time than developing rogue nuclear weapons

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Americans are INSANE about how much the want criminals punished, in CA a guy got a life sentence for stealing a pizza when we tried to have a ‘‘three strikes your out’’ law that automatically gave life sentences at any third conviction which is fucking crazy in a state with tack on laws to the point you can get convicted of 10+ crimes on almost every single infraction, if you commit a felony with a pen or pencil in your pocket, that’s possession of a lethal weapon! it’s absurd. it’s still on the books the three strikes law, but it’s unenforceable because apparently having 60% of your population in prison for life is not a great plan for a civilization.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        America has Private Prisons + Slavery is literally legal in the US for those in Prison.

        As usual, it’s performative moralism hiding the real reason: $$$.

      • DarkwingDuck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Automatic life sentence is too much, maybe we can agree on an automatic 15 year sentence?

        Also, 60% of the population committing felonies is insanity.

        • Snowclone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          it’s really easy to make 60% of your population commit a felony. you just continue to pass laws with the assumption that draconian punishments deter crime. and you keep making lesser and lesser crimes felonies, and punishments harsher, and you can have judges who just want to funnel people into prison to fund their own personal investments. it also helps to have corrupt cops that want to make those felony collars to get promotions and raises. cops literally train each other to escalate things to felonies or find felony charges where clearly none should exist like calling a box cutter a ‘gravity knife’ and charging a felony and if that person isn’t hiring a quality lawyer the public defender with 600 cases says ‘you have 15 min of my time for this case, I glanced at it, I recommend you take a plea deal, our time is up, what’s your decision?’

    • njordomir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      13 hours ago

      That stuck out to me too. Who knew AK-47 and Sour Zzzkittles carried more prison time than enriched Uranium. To be fair, they’ll include a bunch of other charges for both scenarios.

    • xrs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Well, they were probably trying to develop that weed into rogue nuclear weapons.

  • notSys@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I’d propose the opposite: 20 years in prison for anyone who opposes AI research.

    Maybe not really 20 years, but small cut of profits (percentage!) to fund AI developement

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I propose: anyone boosting AI on social media must be forced to not consume any human art. Prompted garbage only. If they violate it, whey will be suspended from social media for one month.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      20 years in prison for anyone who opposes AI research.

      think about the company you keep - ai fanboys like trump and musk and zuck.

      think.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          progress

          does it feel like progress to you? like, when you see they can’t create adequately secured testing, does that seem progressive? does grok undressing children seem like progressive technology?

          just because something is growing in complexity does not mean it’s progress. and again, look at the adherents selling it.

          and the warnings coming from people who left the companies.

          and the cost of power, and water, gpus, ram, etc., - does that seem like things are progressing in a manner you want to see continue?

          progress is a funny word here.

  • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Bernie falling for the trap. The AI companies want regulatory capture. They have NO moat otherwise.

    If those comps are breaking laws, they need to be prosecuted for that. We don’t need new laws that can be exploited by the billionaires.

    • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      sounds like that’s exactly what he proposed

      My instinct is the same as yours but we must make an exception for, specifically, calling for dusting off the perfectly serviceable existing regulations which apply

      I call this rule “we have regulations at home”

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Huh? When companies are exploiting loopholes in laws that never took the new technology into account, you need new laws to close them.

      If companies are claiming the AI agent is responsible, you need to codify that the AI agent can’t be responsible and determined who is (the company or the model creator)

      • kungen@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        14 hours ago

        you need to codify that the AI agent can’t be responsible and determined who is (the company or the model creator)

        Sure. But that’s not exactly what the proposed law is though?

        These companies all want to be captured, “we’re so dangerous, America is going to get destroyed if we’re not mainlined into that $1 trillion/year ‘defense’ budget!”

    • mobyduck648@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yeah in my view (not US but applies regardless of country) the better thing would be to beef up court capacity then start prosecuting the absolute buggery out of anyone who uses, or negligently allows, a model under their control to commit crimes.

      If you’re the master of a ship, your responsibility doesn’t end when you set the autohelm. Same with models in my view.

  • boonhet@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    225
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I’m sure Bernie has good intentions but this is exactly what Altman and Amodei want and why they’re constantly shouting how dangerous AI is.

    Any AI startup can then be labeled as developing artificial superintelligence. Not them though, they’re working together with the government.

    • cøre@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      22 hours ago

      If AI is so dangerous it needs to be immediately banned. The only allowed usage (If any) is research and it is heavily restricted, with heavy oversight from multiple governments. Otherwise its just bullshit

      • SSUPII@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        63
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        It is not. They are spouting this lie and prompting their models to go rogue because they want to be the only trusted company that can “handle them”. It’s all about control and creating a monopoly.

        • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          "“I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt… many executives couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear the same people express fear privately.”

          Jacob Coxen senior researcher at Anthropic, previously at OpenAI

          “Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”

          Evan Hubinger, Anthropic alignment lead

        • BlueOysterCultist@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I wouldn’t say that, the amount of vulnerabilities it’s discovering (and capable of exploiting) is frightening

        • qqq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          16 hours ago

          This is such a wild take to be getting this many upvotes. If nothing happened in LLM development from this day forward they’d still be absurdly dangerous: both in an information security context and a social engineering context.

          Lemmy is absolutely head in the sand about LLMs and it is wild. You can dislike LLMs and acknowledge their capabilities [and limitations] at the same time.

            • qqq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours ago

              LLMs entering the world have revealed two very different types of crazies and I’m starting to think they’re everywhere. It’s quite tiring to have to constantly say “no they’re not useless” and “no they’re not super god” instead of engage with an actually interesting discussion.

              • darvocet@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                I don’t really understand why lemmy thinks what it thinks on this one. To me it’s undeniable that it’s improving fast and it’s capable today of replacing a great many current job roles. Putting our heads in the sand isn’t going to make it go away.

                • qqq@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  Right, and regardless of sci-fi future potentials, there is a current reality and we’re in it and only have so much time to affect it’s evolution. All of these likely intelligent people completely ignoring reality isn’t helping define and construct the world we want tomorrow.

    • fartographer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I get your point, but I also argue “no it’s not.” The AI bros want to lie about how their super-special autocomplete is the most dangerous of all without any consequences. Good luck getting any employees to willingly substantiate your claims when 20 years in prison is on the line.

      Even better, if they try to hack another company and claim their AI did it on its own, they get treated like a private company who decided to perform an unsanctioned nuclear test.

      Make it dangerous for them to claim they’re dangerous.

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Okay, fair, it’s not the ONLY reason they claim it’s dangerous. Obviously marketing is a large part of it. But they sure as hell would both like a duopoly setup enforced by LAW for themselves. Well at this point, I guess quadropoly? I doubt Google or Musk would give up their seats at the table. But anyone making an AI better or cheaper than the established players, would be deemed dangerous. Those working with the DoD would of course not be considered dangerous. Foreign models? Absolutely dangerous, restrict access as much as possible, especially to open weight ones.

    • bampop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Plus OpenAI’s IPO has been delayed due to the hype not being favorable enough, so it’s time to put on the brakes so that AGI can remain just around the corner for a little while longer.

      That said, I do think Bernie’s idea of making the public voting stakeholders in AI companies is interesting. Existential threats notwithstanding, AI is having a significant impact in a lot of ways and the public interest should be represented. Though in practice I doubt that you’ll get the entire public voting in any meaningful direction so that 50% might not make any effective change.

    • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      Not them though, they’re working together with the government.

      Isn’t there a law for them who plan and prepare to grab the power? I mean, that’s what this Altman is doing all the time. Has been doing for at least 2 years now.

    • Brimstone@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I wouldn’t be sure he has any good intentions.

      Trump wants no AI regulation.

      This is just the opposite of that which is what usually works for opposition politicians.

      • Goodeye8@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Reducing Bernie to the “opposite politician”, well that’s definitely a take for the ages.

    • Smaile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

      this will only hurt the us further, many will simply build outside of america.

        • Leon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Several communities have grouped together to protest the efforts. In face of a common enemy and all that. That’s the one good thing to have come out of all this bullshit; some class camaraderie that crosses the lines of political parties.

          That’s not me saying that it wouldn’t have been better had this bullshit never come around.

  • heartSagan5@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    I assume then there is an exception for the military, and it will have no teeth because of that.

    People ought to realize the “military industrial complex” is also where they send things like burn pits, which means they don’t care much about environmental or physiological issues.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Now do the same for genociders and their supporters. Lets get back to standing against facsism too.