Commentary: Of course the government should regulate AI, but not the way the AI industry prefers
This is read by an automated voice.Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.
See more from the L.A.Times in Google Search.
Set us as preferred If you believe the artificial intelligence industry, they’re thirsting for government regulation; at least, some of their leaders are.OpenAI issued a whole “blueprint for democratic governance” of AI in June.
Around the same time, Dario Amodei, the chief executive of the AI firm Anthropic, called for “more serious and binding regulation of AI” akin to that of cars, airplanes and drugs, modeled on agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration.That looks encouraging, on the surface.But it demands a much closer look.
The truth is that the AI camp is down with government regulation, as long as it’s regulation it has designed.Nothing says the devil is in the details more than its approach to regulation.
A lot of people are treating OpenAI’s repeated claims that they didn’t intend the break-ins, suicides, murder, and building of defective products as dispositive.That’s what people who don’t want to be held responsible often say.
— Legal expert Zephyr TeachoutLeading AI executives have already been talking about limits on government oversight.In an interview earlier this month with Politico, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman advocated a “lighter touch regulatory stance,” predicated on the idea that “the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency.”That’s a familiar argument among technology entrepreneurs in almost every category — that what they’re doing is so danged important for the world that government should back off.
Do you believe that decisions about how to balance bad consequences of AI technology with its benefits can safely be placed in the hands of the Sam Altmans of the world? (Me neither.) Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service,...