An interesting idea to check the power of big corporation and to slowdown AI is an energy fee and dividend. It is better known as a carbon fee and dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend but the idea is the same, it would also work as an AI fee and dividend.
AI's greatest risk to freedom is rooted in the great expense and difficulty of creating large scale systems. Because these systems are expensive, there will only ever be a very few of them. Which means that, as they become ever more able to answer questions with minimal effort, more and more of the people's "research" or answer-seeking will rely on a small number of sources. What we're creating here is a monopoly, or at least an oligopoly, of knowledge. But, while a normal oligopoly threatens only our ability to receive some product or service at a fair price, an oligopoly of knowledge threatens our ability to maintain an informed citizenry -- without which there can be no freedom.
We've been taught by Elon Musk's manipulation of the output of Grok, to reflect his personal view of South Africa and other issues, that those who operate AI systems are quite capable of influencing the view of reality held by millions of people. While Musk's interference was intentional, we must also anticipate that there will be unintentional biases of output. Each system's decisions concerning source of training inputs, methods for preparing that input, and for weighting it, has dramatic impacts on what they will output in response to user queries.
The monopolization of knowledge ensured by these systems may not cause much concern if the tasks are mundane. But, it is clear that users also ask AI systems to weigh in on issues important to society. What are the arguments for and against abortion? What is the proper way to tax? What are the most important conservative or liberal principles? These latter questions are not ones whose answers should be largely served up by a small number of systems controlled by individuals whose interests are not necessarily in line with those of society. We should't be surprised to see "conservative" or "left-wing" AI models tend to appear. Systems with a "China-bias" already exist...
There were those who argued against the influence of Google and search engines for similar reasons. But, at least with those systems, their users had to dig through the sources linked to and make their own conclusions. Even if the search engines themselves didn't link to some content, sometimes those links could be found within what they did link to. Yes, there was certainly a danger presented by a monopolization of search services. But, that danger pales when compared to the danger from the concentration of access to knowledge in a small number of highly expensive, inevitably opaque AI systems.
My personal feeling is that when a resource is shown to provide a vital benefit to society, then, if that resource isn't likely to be subject to the kind of market forces that will ensure that it continues to serve society's needs well, we should consider regulating it to ensure that it does. The vast majority of businesses don't have the broad societal impact needed to justify such regulations. But, some do. That why we regulate the electric grid, water and sewer systems, and transportation routes, do. Now, I think we should ask whether "knowledge" provision, in the form of AI systems, might not be yet another resource significant enough to warrant regulation as a societal utility.
“…the American spirit—the spirit that saved the world in World War II…”. Certainly our country contributed to winning that war, but the Soviets with steely resolve and great sacrifice, 26 million dead (8-10 million combatants) did keep the Germans tied up, no? Four million of the five million German KIA’s were on the Eastern/Soviet front.
No. If it wasn't AI it would have been something else: The Devil made me do it. Rock&Roll, TV, Pornography, Alcohol, Heathens, Capitalism, Albinos. you name it someone will believe the world will be a better place without it. People are always looking for something to blame as "The Cause!" Oh, and then there is always "The Jews!". If someone wants to end their life they will find a reason\ justification and other people will try and assign the blame to whatever the latest thing is to blame for all the ills in the world. AI wasn't the cause the Branch Davidian's or Jones Town, or Heavens Gate ( the cult, not the movie). AI is just the lates hook people want to hang the blame hat on.
There's an enormous contradiction in this argument. It bases an argument for MORE government regulation on the patron saint of LESS regulation.
An interesting idea to check the power of big corporation and to slowdown AI is an energy fee and dividend. It is better known as a carbon fee and dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend but the idea is the same, it would also work as an AI fee and dividend.
AI's greatest risk to freedom is rooted in the great expense and difficulty of creating large scale systems. Because these systems are expensive, there will only ever be a very few of them. Which means that, as they become ever more able to answer questions with minimal effort, more and more of the people's "research" or answer-seeking will rely on a small number of sources. What we're creating here is a monopoly, or at least an oligopoly, of knowledge. But, while a normal oligopoly threatens only our ability to receive some product or service at a fair price, an oligopoly of knowledge threatens our ability to maintain an informed citizenry -- without which there can be no freedom.
We've been taught by Elon Musk's manipulation of the output of Grok, to reflect his personal view of South Africa and other issues, that those who operate AI systems are quite capable of influencing the view of reality held by millions of people. While Musk's interference was intentional, we must also anticipate that there will be unintentional biases of output. Each system's decisions concerning source of training inputs, methods for preparing that input, and for weighting it, has dramatic impacts on what they will output in response to user queries.
The monopolization of knowledge ensured by these systems may not cause much concern if the tasks are mundane. But, it is clear that users also ask AI systems to weigh in on issues important to society. What are the arguments for and against abortion? What is the proper way to tax? What are the most important conservative or liberal principles? These latter questions are not ones whose answers should be largely served up by a small number of systems controlled by individuals whose interests are not necessarily in line with those of society. We should't be surprised to see "conservative" or "left-wing" AI models tend to appear. Systems with a "China-bias" already exist...
There were those who argued against the influence of Google and search engines for similar reasons. But, at least with those systems, their users had to dig through the sources linked to and make their own conclusions. Even if the search engines themselves didn't link to some content, sometimes those links could be found within what they did link to. Yes, there was certainly a danger presented by a monopolization of search services. But, that danger pales when compared to the danger from the concentration of access to knowledge in a small number of highly expensive, inevitably opaque AI systems.
My personal feeling is that when a resource is shown to provide a vital benefit to society, then, if that resource isn't likely to be subject to the kind of market forces that will ensure that it continues to serve society's needs well, we should consider regulating it to ensure that it does. The vast majority of businesses don't have the broad societal impact needed to justify such regulations. But, some do. That why we regulate the electric grid, water and sewer systems, and transportation routes, do. Now, I think we should ask whether "knowledge" provision, in the form of AI systems, might not be yet another resource significant enough to warrant regulation as a societal utility.
“…the American spirit—the spirit that saved the world in World War II…”. Certainly our country contributed to winning that war, but the Soviets with steely resolve and great sacrifice, 26 million dead (8-10 million combatants) did keep the Germans tied up, no? Four million of the five million German KIA’s were on the Eastern/Soviet front.
No. If it wasn't AI it would have been something else: The Devil made me do it. Rock&Roll, TV, Pornography, Alcohol, Heathens, Capitalism, Albinos. you name it someone will believe the world will be a better place without it. People are always looking for something to blame as "The Cause!" Oh, and then there is always "The Jews!". If someone wants to end their life they will find a reason\ justification and other people will try and assign the blame to whatever the latest thing is to blame for all the ills in the world. AI wasn't the cause the Branch Davidian's or Jones Town, or Heavens Gate ( the cult, not the movie). AI is just the lates hook people want to hang the blame hat on.