Is it time to regulate AI?

I think that, one thing we can agree on, is that AI is gonna happen - it already is. just letting it happen without at the very least, talking about what the means, how it's going to effect people, taking a hard look at how it's going to be used, not just but us, but by other countries, is better than just ignoring it until it becomes more difficult or impossible to regulate. i think that, at the very least, someone does have to get this thing rolling. is it an attempt to keep all but the big players out? hard to say. i always like to think that people can be altruistic and actually care - i try not to be overly cynical, while still being realistic. so... hard to say. time will tell.

i know a lot of artists and writers are concerned that AI will be used to 'replace' them, especially with the current writers strike going on.... we've had some backroom discussions for a while now about our stance on AI-generated stories for the site - whether we embrace them or discourage them - and really, if they're good enough that no one knows, how do we even monitor them unless someone flat out states that they've used an AI program to write something?

it's new territory - a new frontier, and bluntly, we'll probably blunder our way through it until we figure it out. or don't. no matter what, i am guessing what we (America) decides will be better than what a country like China, Russia, or N.Korea decides and whatever regulations we impose will have no effect on their decisions what do to with it...

I have no doubt that AI will be used by some governments to subvert freedom, liberty, and democracy for human beings. And some will use AI to militarily and economically dominate.

I also have no doubt that some corporations will use AI to replace human employees and further distance the ruling elite from the masses

Quote by sprite

I think that, one thing we can agree on, is that AI is gonna happen - it already is. just letting it happen without at the very least, talking about what the means, how it's going to effect people, taking a hard look at how it's going to be used, not just but us, but by other countries, is better than just ignoring it until it becomes more difficult or impossible to regulate. i think that, at the very least, someone does have to get this thing rolling. is it an attempt to keep all but the big players out? hard to say. i always like to think that people can be altruistic and actually care - i try not to be overly cynical, while still being realistic. so... hard to say. time will tell.

i know a lot of artists and writers are concerned that AI will be used to 'replace' them, especially with the current writers strike going on.... we've had some backroom discussions for a while now about our stance on AI-generated stories for the site - whether we embrace them or discourage them - and really, if they're good enough that no one knows, how do we even monitor them unless someone flat out states that they've used an AI program to write something?

it's new territory - a new frontier, and bluntly, we'll probably blunder our way through it until we figure it out. or don't. no matter what, i am guessing what we (America) decides will be better than what a country like China, Russia, or N.Korea decides and whatever regulations we impose will have no effect on their decisions what do to

Thus far attempts to “regulate” rapidly evolving technology have been erratic and mostly unsuccessful. Governments lack individuals with sufficient experience and/or the ability to resist the influence of powerful organizations. AI has the ability to transform much of what we do whether it is artistic, medical, or societal. That transformation has the ability to be extraordinary in terms of good or something horrible. In my heart, I feel the influence of AI will come from within the industry, not from regulations.

AI is really still an infant, but will probably improve quickly. No doubt, AI will, before long, eliminate many jobs for humans.

Laws to limit AI will be easily bypassed, and some nations will gladly embrace AI to advance militarily and economically.

AI has been in operation for years.

Call the Doctor or business and get an automated or pre-recorded voice telling you to say certain things to get through to a certain department? That's the bare bones of AI.

AI is currently taking, and will continue to take human jobs within the Technology sector though, which needs to be a concern to us all within the sector.

It will improve efficiency, no doubt! It will also remove accountability, which is my main gripe with the current state of the tech.

It's already controlling some parts of the Financial Markets too, especially Equities, with its ability to read patterns and algorithms 1,000x faster than that which is humanly possible.

The economy is only really worth something to humans, whilst humans are in control of it. If we let that slip, then we might as well adopt Crypto currencies, with no exchange rate, globally - seeing as Bullion is now redundant to the economy.

We will benefit from AI in the short term, for sure. I can see us becoming a victim of our own technological curiosity at the hands of AI though, if we are not regulating and restricting it.

Maybe I have just watched too much I,Robot...

https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-powered-drone-tried-killing-its-operator-in-military-simulation-2023-6

First, the colonel shared a story of an AI simulation that, when told by its operator to ignore its primary objective, turned on the operator and tried to kill them. When it was told it couldn't kill the operator, it knocked out the communications tower that delivered its orders.

The Air Force corrected his statement, saying no such simulation was actually done. The good colonel, who probably won't be giving any interviews anymore, also said that he was misunderstood. It wasn't a simulation. There wasn't any need for the simulation to know this was a potential outcome.

So, at the very least, maybe we don't put AI in charge of guns, missiles, combat aircraft....

Quote by Georgia_27_8

AI has been in operation for years.

Call the Doctor or business and get an automated or pre-recorded voice telling you to say certain things to get through to a certain department? That's the bare bones of AI.

A pre-recorded voice and having to choose between predefined options suggest it's not AI at all. That's just the regular dial menu with a fancier interface (assuming it understands one's particular accent that is, otherwise it's just more annoying).

Regulations could be that AI may not (yet) be used for certain tasks. Or that companies developing AI systems need to follow certain procedures, provide certain documentation, be able to explain how their AI came to a certain action/result, etc.

Regulations could also mean that publishing AI tools requires massive insurance in case things go bad. Or that folks at the top of the chain can be held personally responsible when things go bad. This might be an incentive to reduce reckless publishing of AI.

Perhaps the output of AI needs to have some kind of digital watermark that makes it possible to identify it as such.

The fact that many of the main developers of AI say that there should be some regulation suggests that they believe it is possible to come up with regulations that could prevent some issues that may arise from the use of AI. That, or they just believe that such regulations will hamper their competition more than it will hamper them. I hope it's the former and not the latter. I also hope that we'll see some sensible AI regulation soon.

It is. But with everything else, there will be a push to let it free and make it's own decision.

Skynet anyone?

I can't understand all the fuss about AI; all this messing about with artificial stuff. Just sit a couple down and log them in to Lush Stories for a couple of hours. No better way to get the process of insemination going, in my opinion!

Quote by noll

A pre-recorded voice and having to choose between predefined options suggest it's not AI at all. That's just the regular dial menu with a fancier interface (assuming it understands one's particular accent that is, otherwise it's just more annoying).

Button selective options isn't. The system recognising certain vocal commands to guide you through the process, is.

Quote by Georgia_27_8

Button selective options isn't. The system recognising certain vocal commands to guide you through the process, is.

Only if it can figure out how to handle options, which are not predefined, in a meaningful way as well. For 'simply' recognising certain vocal commands the system does not need to have any notion of what that command means. It 'only' needs to check whether it passes the test for one of the predefined options or not.

Quote by Chryses

AI at your service.

Juliette de Causans has caused a stir in Europe. Ms. de Causans is running for the French Senate as a candidate of the Europe Ecologie Egalite party. She put up campaign posters with a photo of her that…isn’t quite her:

The Telegraph reports:

A French politician has been criticised for “misleading” voters by using digital enhancements to give her a youthful glow in campaign posters.

Juliette de Causans, who is running as a candidate in France’s senatorial elections this month, was pictured in recent posters sporting a more Hollywood image compared to her normal appearance.

Ms De Causans is in her 40s but has not given her exact age. In a poster from March this year, she could plausibly pass off as someone in her mid-20s: her skin noticeably brighter, teeth straighter and hair more luscious compared to what appear to be unedited photos of her on .

I would say she looks like a different person. DeCausans says she “tweaked” her image for the campaign photo, which she defends on the ground that it is “more likely to boost her party’s cause of supporting Europe and the environment.” What wrong has not been committed in the name of global warming?

She has also come up with a new addition to the Rights of Man:

Defending her use of retouched images, Ms De Causans has said: “It’s my right as a candidate to have a beautiful photo.”

How is this about A.I.?

Thats just catfishing.

Quote by Magical_felix

How is this about A.I.?

Thats just catfishing.

It is an AI genereated/enhnaced image.

An AI generated/enhanced image used to sway voters minds by using a more "socially attractive" version of themselves.

It is catfishing, yes. Catfishing via AI generated imagery.

There's a possible future where humans and technology live in symbiotic harmony. Unfortunately, it's not a very likely future given our current sociopolitical position. At the very least, I don't believe that AI and capitalism are compatible (at least not in a healthy way). The major problem isn't exactly the technology itself, but what it enables people to do - particularly those with the money to purchase and control AI systems. We're facing serious ethical decisions about the future of AI and I honestly have little faith that those in power have any interest (or perhaps even the capacity) for serious ethical consideration outside of their own self-interest - often at the expense of society at large. Regulation might be able to mitigate the most predictable misuses of AI, but we shouldn't underestimate the creativity of selfish people to gain and exploit a market advantage (America's mythos as the land of opportunity is based on it) regardless of the impact on others. To be clear, the technology problem is in fact a human problem - the problem is us.

Quote by Georgia_27_8

It is an AI genereated/enhnaced image.

An AI generated/enhanced image used to sway voters minds by using a more "socially attractive" version of themselves.

It is catfishing, yes. Catfishing via AI generated imagery.

Digital enhancements aren’t AI, I mean people have been doing that with photoshop for two decades. Are we worried about the computing process digital brushes go through now? Are calculators AI too?

By her own admission, Ms. DeCausans wasn't trying to mislead anyone about her appearance. She did this as a form of disruptive campaigning to get people talking about her obviously enhanced image, and therefore her campaign.

I think we as a society need to understand what AI is before regulating it. Most of what I have heard on the subject of AI belongs in a pulp fiction novel.

Quote by Chryses

I agree with you, as do others.

From the Telegraph piece:

Voters have taken to social media to criticise Ms De Causans as being disingenuous.

“You are misleading voters with your campaign photo. It’s pathetic, I’m not voting for you anymore. Return to the Ardennes we deserve better,” wrote one on her account.

Another said: “Indeed, you look nothing like your campaign photo, you start directly with lies, it’s beautiful.”

Nothing about AI... They are mad at the catfishing.

I get that a gentleman of such advanced age as yourself is confused about tech though.

Quote by Magical_felix

Digital enhancements aren’t AI, I mean people have been doing that with photoshop for two decades. Are we worried about the computing process digital brushes go through now? Are calculators AI too?

I am very well versed in AI art using editing apps, tools and text-prompted AI engines.

The image mentioned is not done using Photoshop skills.

It is, more than likely done using the AI face-swapping tool "FaceApp" or one very, very similar.

Quote by Georgia_27_8

I am very well versed in AI art using editing apps, tools and text-prompted AI engines.

The image mentioned is not done using Photoshop skills.

It is, more than likely done using the AI face-swapping tool "FaceApp" or one very, very similar.

But you're not sure right.. because there is no mention if that.

Didn't realize the dangers of A.I. thread was about filters... and not like actual A.I. creating false political narratives to start WW3 or deciding the planet is better without humans on it or something like that.

The danger is... women using filters lol

Quote by ElCoco

Some people aren't familiar with current tech.

This is a great example of how conservative logic and narratives work on the internet.

One conservative posts an article and makes it about A.I. even though there is no mention of it in the article.

Another fills in the gaps and says "probably" A.I.

And a third just acts like it was definitely A.I.

Result... The conservatives are whipped up over a politician who talks about climate change.

The focus now is on nothingness. Instead of any real issues.

Quote by ElCoco

Attacking what others post and trying to redirect the conversation isn't productive. Typical, but not productive.

You're right, please continue to make things up and act like a useful idiot.

Quote by ElCoco

Attacking what others post and trying to redirect the conversation isn't productive. Typical, but not productive.

Doesn't look like an attack. It looks like an accurate observation. Per usual, yet another thread started by the usual parties, has been ruined by the usual parties, namely, ElCoco, Ironic, and Chryses, in their ongoing commitment to engaging in the same empty style of dialogue. Bravo.