AI's Future Hangs in the Balance With California Law : technology

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It’s also not clear if it’s even possible to fully prevent AI systems from misbehaving. The truth is, we don’t know a lot about how LLMs work, and today’s leading AI models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are jailbroken all the time. That’s why some researchers are saying regulators should focus on the bad actors, not the model providers.

It seems a complicated debate. Hard to find out where you want to stand. I want to show a method to find answers by creating 3 variants of an analogy.

For how many of these cases do you think somebody should be doing something?

Case 1:
A huge warehouse full of firearms. Burglars are breaking into it every night and stealing lots of weapons. The owners say they don't know how this warehouse was built and how to make it more secure in order to stop the criminals from obtaining lots of new weapons every day. The general public starts calling to the government to do something. Some say the warehouse owner should take responsibility. Others say it all depends on how the criminals use the weapons. The criminals seem to know how to use them good...

Case 2:
A huge warehouse full of hammers. Burglars are breaking into it every night and stealing lots of hammers. The owners say they don't know how this warehouse was built and how to make it more secure in order to stop the criminals from obtaining lots of new hammers every day. The general public starts calling to the government to do something. Some say the warehouse owner should take responsibility. Others say it all depends on how the criminals use the hammers. The criminals seem to know how to use them good...

Case 3:
A huge warehouse full of tulips. Burglars are breaking into it every night and stealing lots of flowers. The owners say they don't know how this warehouse was built and how to make it more secure in order to stop the criminals from obtaining lots of new flowers every day. The general public starts calling to the government to do something. Some say the warehouse owner should take responsibility. Others say it all depends on how the criminals use the tulips. The criminals seem to know how to use them good...

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

AI's future in California hangs in the balance.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Isn't California the Capitol of the world? ;-)

I really don't think that the AI guys want to be anywhere else.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If it were a country, it would be the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. Not debating; just saying it can have a big impact.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 0 points 4 months ago

It's also somewhat unique as a state (maybe?) in that it has a ton of corporate exports (namely, tech), as well as gigantic agricultural output. Illinois comes to mind as a similar situation. Contrast to Alaska (oil) or NY (NYC finance/corporate).

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 4 months ago

If California passes major restrictions on AI training then I think AI guys would very much want to be anywhere else.

There are already plenty of places to go. Major centers of AI activity include the UK, France, Israel, China and Canada. Many of the top AI companies aren't headquartered in California even if they're US-based.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Does that apply to any other type of technology, or are they just witch hunting?

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

any other type of technology

Are there, for example, nuclear weapons available for general use?

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

What kind of straw-man fallacy is that?

Please be rational.

Nuclear power keeps lots of people lights on. Same a AI technology is already making lots of people live better. For instance, in my country the IRS equivalent is already using it to successfully detect fiscal fraud.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's not a straw man. Nuclear technology is highly regulated.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I do not know how regulations come into play. But I'm OK with regulating technology according to its potential (real, not imagined) risk.

What I'm not OK with is with primitivism.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

SB 1047 is a California state bill that would make large AI model providers – such as Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral – liable for the potentially catastrophic dangers of their AI systems.

Now this sounds like a complicated debate - but it seems to me like everyone against this bill are people who would benefit monetarily from not having to deal with the safety aspect of AI, and that does sound suspicious to me.

Another technical piece of this bill relates to open-source AI models. [...] There’s a caveat that if a developer spends more than 25% of the cost to train Llama 3 on fine-tuning, that developer is now responsible. That said, opponents of the bill still find this unfair and not the right approach.

In regards to the open source models, while it makes sense that if a developer takes the model and does a significant portion of the fine tuning, they should be liable for the result of that...

But should the main developer still be liable if a bad actor does less than 25% fine tuning and uses exploits in the base model?

One could argue that developers should be trying to examine their black-boxes for vunerabilities, rather than shrugging and saying it can't be done then demanding they not be held liable.

[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In regards to the open source models, while it makes sense that if a developer takes the model and does a significant portion of the fine tuning, they should be liable for the result of that...

This kind of goes against the model that open source has operated on for a long time, as providing source doesn't represent liability. So providing a fine-tuned model shouldn't either.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 1 points 4 months ago

So providing a fine-tuned model shouldn't either.

I didn't mean in terms of providing. I meant that if someone provided a base model, someone took that, built upon it, then used it for a harmful purpose - of course the person modified it should be liable, not the base provider.

It's like if someone took a version of Linux, modified it, then used that modified version for an illegal act - you wouldn't go after the person who made the unmodified version.

[–] Sgagvefey@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Though it sounds extreme, there are a lot of smart people in the AI community who truly believe AI could end humanity.

No. There are not.

Believing anything resembling current tools has the capacity to end humanity in incontrovertible proof that you are not smart.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

AI person reporting in. Without saying whether or not I personally believe that the current tools will lead to the end of humanity, I'll point out a few possibilities that I find concerning about what's going on:

The hype around AI is being used to justify mass layoffs, where humans are being replaced by tools that do a questionable job and can't really understand the things those humans could understand. Whether or not the AI can do as good of a job according to some statical measurement is less relevant than the fact that a human is less likely to make an extremely grave mistake and more likely to be able to recognize when that does happen. I'm concerned this will lead to cross-industry enshitification on an unprecedented scale.
The foundation models consume a huge amount of energy. The more impressive you want it to be, the more energy it needs. As long as the data centers which run them are dependent on fossil fuels, they'll be pumping a huge amount of carbon in the air just to do replace jobs that we didn't need to have replaced.
As these tools are used more and more, they're going to end up "learning" from content created by themselves instead of something that's closer to a ground truth. It's hard to predict what kind of degradation of service will come from this, but the more we create systems that rely on these tools, the more harm it will do to us.
Given the cost and nature of these tools, they're likely to yield the most benefit to moneyed interests that want to automate the systems that maintain their power and wealth. E.g. generating large amounts of convincing disinformation to manipulate the public into supporting politicians or policies that benefit a small number of wealthy people in the short term while locking humanity into a path towards destruction.

And none of this accounts for possible future iterations of AI tools that may be far more capable than what exists today. That future technology will most likely be controlled by powerful people who are primarily interested in using it to bolster the systems that keep them in power, to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

Personally I'm far less concerned about a malicious AI intentionally doing harm to humanity than AI being used as a weapon by unscrupulous people.

[–] Sgagvefey@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Zero of these things are impacted by this legislation in any way.

This is exclusively the mentally unstable "killer AI" nonsense. We're not even 1% of 1% of the way to anything resembling agency.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s good for marketing, though. “Ah, our software is so powerful, it could destroy humanity! Please pass a bill saying so while we market friendly chatbots to the public while actually making money by selling our products to despots and warmongers that might actually end humanity.”

[–] Sgagvefey@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago

It's regulatory capture. Add deluded barriers to entry to make it difficult for competition and community projects to develop, and you have a monopoly.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but this outcome is not at all surprising. There are plenty of smart AI people that have nuanced views of what kind of threat could be posed by recklessly unleashing tools that we don't fully understand into the hands of people who are likely to do harmful things with them.

It's not surprising that those valid nuanced concerns get translated into overly simplistic misrepresentations entangled with pop sci fi panic around rogue AI as they try to move into public discourse.

[–] Sgagvefey@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

We do fully understand them. Not knowing the exact reason they come to a model doesn't mean the algorithm has a shred of mystery involved. It's like saying we don't understand fluid dynamics because it's computationally heavy.

It's autocomplete with a really big training set and a really big model. It cannot possibly develop agency. It's hundreds of orders of magnitude of complexity short of a human.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's not what an algorithms researcher means when we talk about "understanding". Obviously we know the mechanism by which it operates, it's not an unknown alien technology that dropped into our laps.

Understanding an algorithm means being able to predict the characteristics of its outputs based on the characteristics of its inputs. E.g. will it give an optimal solution to a problem that we pose? Will its response satisfy certain constraints or fall within certain bounds?

Figuring this stuff out for foundation models is an active area of research, and the absence of this predictability is an enormous safety concern for any use cases where the output can be consequential.

It cannot possibly develop agency.

I don't believe I've suggested anywhere that I think it will, but I'll play around with this concern anyway... There's a lot of discussion going on about having models feed back on themselves to learn from their own output. I don't find it all that hard to imagine that something we could reasonably consider self awareness could be formed by a very complex neural network that is able to consume and process its own outputs. And once self awareness starts to form, it's not that hard for me to imagine a sense of agency following. I have no idea what the model might use that agency for, but I don't think it's all that far fetched to consider the possibility of it happening.

[–] Sgagvefey@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are plenty of nondeterministic algorithms. It's not a special trait. There are plenty of algorithms with actual emergent behavior, which LLMs don't have to any meaningful extent. We absolutely understand how LLMs work

The answer to both of your questions is not some unsolved mystery. It's "of course not". That's not what they do and fundamentally requires a much more complex architecture to even approach.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Non-deterministic algorithms such as Monte Carlo methods or simulated annealing can still be constrained to an acceptable state space. How to do this effectively for LLMs is a very open question, largely because the state space of the problems that they are applied to is incomprehensibly huge.

[–] Sgagvefey@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's only an "open question" if you are somehow confused by the fact that it's a super simple algorithm that cannot ever possibly be used like that.

It may be a small part of a proper architecture for a functional solution, but there's no possibility that it will ever be doing the heavy lifting. It is what it is, and that's an obvious dead end.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Literally nothing you've said gives any indication that you actually know the current state of foundation model research. I won't claim it's my research specialty, but I work directly with people whose full time job is research and tuning on foundation models, and everything I'm saying is being relayed from conversations that I have with them.

"Cannot ever possibly be used like that".. Like what specifically? To drive a car? That's being done. To give financial advice? That's being done. To console people who are suicidal or at risk of harming themselves? That's being done. To make kill / no kill decisions in an active warzone? It's being considered (if not already being done in secret).

This technology is being used in extremely consequential positions despite having very weak guarantees around safety. This should give any reasonable person pause. I'm not taking any firm stance on whether this specific regulation is the right approach, but if you think there should be no legal accountability for the outcomes of how this technology gets used then I guess you're someone who thinks seatbelts should be optional in cars and it's okay for airplanes to fall out of the sky due to neglect.

[–] Sgagvefey@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

For anything where you would ever expect a predictable, useful outcome to an arbitrary input. There is no possible path to LLMs ever doing anything close to that.

LLMs aren't driving cars. LLMs aren't doing financial modeling. Those are entirely different tools with heavily hand crafted models to specific applications.

Anyone using an LLM to provide therapy should get multiple life sentences in prison regardless of outcomes. There is no possible way to LLMs ever being actually useful for therapy. It's just a random text generator that's tuned well enough to sound good. It has no substance and the underlying tech cannot possibly develop substance.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I can't tell if you're suggesting that foundation models (which is the underpinning technology of LLMs) aren't being used for the things that I said they're being used for, but I can assure you they are, either in commercial R&D or in live commercial products.

The fact that they shouldn't be used for these things is something we can certainly agree on, but the fact remains that they are.

Sources:

Wayve is using foundation models for driving, and I am under the impression that their neural net extends all the way from sensor input to motor control: https://wayve.ai/thinking/introducing-gaia1/
Research recommending the use of LLMs for giving financial advice: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4850039
LLMs for therapy: https://blog.langchain.dev/mental-health-therapy-as-an-llm-state-machine/

So this all goes back to my point that some form of accountability is needed for how these tools get used. I haven't examined the specific legislation proposal enough to give any firm opinion on it, but I think it's a good thing that the conversation is happening in a serious way.

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 4 months ago

I agree with everything you said and wanted to point out that you offered quite a compelling argument that even current AI tools are capable of significant amounts of damage without even touching on the autonomous weapons systems that are starting to be deployed.

Not even just talking about the military intelligence systems that may or may not have been deployed (Israel: Lavender et al), but we're starting to show off weapons platforms that may someday be empowered to perform their own threat analysis and take real world actions accordingly. That shit is terrifying in more of a Terminator/Matrix way than anything else imo.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (8 children)

The hype around AI is being used to justify mass layoffs,

Ban stock buybacks, abolish non-competes, fine the CEO and major stockholders personally for layoffs.

The foundation models consume a huge amount of energy. The more impressive you want it to be,

Nuclear power, renewables, carbon tax

As these tools are used more and more, they’re going to end up “learning” from content created by themselves instead of something that’s closer to a ground truth.

Not really our problem it is their problem.

Given the cost and nature of these tools, they’re likely to yield the most benefit to moneyed interests that want to automate the systems that maintain their power and wealth.

Restore the fairness doctrine limit the ability of groups like Sinclair.

Got any other impossible to solve issues let me know.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

AI takes a crazy amount of power, which is largely fueled by the same fossil fuels that are indeed killing us off and destroying our habitat, which will kill even more of us, so AI could definitely indirectly kill off humanity.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

If we get killed by auto complete we deserve to die.

[–] Zarxrax@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This bill seems somewhat misguided. How in the hell is something like a large language model going to cause a mass casualty incident? What I am more worried about is things that could more realistically pose a danger. What if robotic dogs patrolling the border have machine guns mounted on their backs, then a child does something unexpected and the robot wipes out an entire family? What if a self driving car suddenly takes off at full speed through a parade? They are trying to slot AI into everything now, and it will inevitably end up in some places that are going to cause loss of life. But chatbots? Give me a break.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You gonna understand the state is run by paranoid sociopaths. They'll dream up any delusional scenario, then use it as an excuse for more surveillance, prisons, wars, control, etc.

For example, imagine somebody hacks a major social platform and sends a fake message from AI/deepfake Trump to thousand of chuds inciting some kind of fascist terrorism. It might sound unrealistic but what if?!?!?! I could imagine something similar happening with current tech. (I think it's part of why they're trying to ban TikTok.)

In general I feel like "AI" is almost entirely lies, hype, grifting, etc. But I could imagine some scenarios that the state might want to disincentivize.

[–] PenisWenisGenius@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I already downloaded all the open source self hosted stuff and ain't gonna delete it. Get wrecked California state legislature.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't see how this is enforceable.

Large AI providers will also have high caliber legal teams to fight any incident and demonstrate it it wasn't the AI's fault, but the stupid people who gave it control.

Smaller projects won't have the same warchests, and eventually they'll become the target.

In the meantime, yeah, Zuckerberg and all the other flank-speed-ahead investors will not be slowed in making the AI that will smooth talk our billionaires into a failed trip to mars.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Yes that's the point, this legislation is mostly aimed and creating a legal moat for the large tech companies.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

Everyone: "AI is using too much energy!"

Legislators: "I shall make companies liable for terminators."

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

From the article:

SB 1047 is a California state bill that would make large AI model providers – such as Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral – liable for the potentially catastrophic dangers of their AI systems.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

The article lies about what's in the bill. No idea why.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1047

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

America: gun shops and manufacturers are shielded from lawsuits. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Also America: someone might learn how to make a bomb from an AI instead of learning it in the many many other places. Better sue.

Inconsistent. I can't sue because my kids school have to have a constant police presence.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Still. I think putting the brakes on “AI” is the right move right now. With its energy usage, intellectual property theft, nonconsensual (and underage) porn generating…not to mention its use by the ownership class to take and commodify human expression away from humans and the capitalist motive to profit over any consideration for the ramifications for the working class…I think halting this until we can get some protections in place for those this tech seems determined to exploit is a good thing.

Not that any of those problems will be solved even if we did hit the brakes. But, theoretically, yeah. I’m about it. Because, true to capitalist form, we are worsening the problems we haven’t even started trying to solve.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (10 children)

think putting the brakes on “AI” is the right move right now.

Strong disagree. I won't accept any solution that step 1 is willful ignorance. You might be willing to stick your head in the sand because the world keeps moving, I am not.

With its energy usage, intellectual property theft, nonconsensual (and underage) porn generating…not to mention its use by the ownership class to take and commodify human expression away from humans and the capitalist motive to profit over any consideration for the ramifications for the working class…I

I always know when someone doesn't have a good argument when they give me a dozen bad ones. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 .... Still equals 0. No matter how many times you do it.

[–] Fedop@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This comment is decrying it's parent, but it doesn't say anything to refute the points made. Energy use, intellectual property theft, and non-consensual porn seem like pretty decent things to be worried about.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Yeah, because it's good stuff to point out and think on... But ultimately inconsequential as the previous comment points out. The world is getting AI eventually, the question is do we want to be the first ones with the keys?

All the same arguments could have been made about the internet. Inb4 someone makes the incredibly likewarm take that the internet was a mistake. It was inevitable, if we had "pumped-the-brakes" on it we wouldn't have found some clean way to implement the internet where no one gets hurt. Someone who wasn't concerned about ethics would have got there first to set the standard.

Actually a better analogy for AI might be the nuclear bomb. If we slow down someone else will get their first. Silicone Valley doesn't have the best track record with ethics. But call me crazy, I'd rather them figure it out before China or Russia. Because they sure as shit ain't using their brakes.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots