Gary Marcus

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 65
6/8/2024, 1:36:22 PM
X
In reply to:
Thomas G. Dietterich
@tdietterich
·
534d
@GaryMarcus @commonsensedoge Consistency would make compliance easier.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
534d
@tdietterich @commonsensedoge Sure, that is an intellectually respectable position – but note that the companies also lobbied hard against EU AI Act.
Thomas G. Dietterich
@tdietterich
·
534d
@GaryMarcus @commonsensedoge They are already living with the EU AI act in Europe. Why not duplicate it in California and the US? The CA law doesn’t seem well-designed. Opposing a bad law doesn’t mean opposing all laws
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
534d
@tdietterich @commonsensedoge Not of the companies that said it wants regulation has supported CA SB-1047, afaik.

Not one of the major opponents has offered any sort of alternative, so far as I know.

If they don’t like 1047, and they are sincere in wanting regulation, what is their alternative?
Thomas G. Dietterich
@tdietterich
·
534d
@commonsensedoge @GaryMarcus But is this bill the right way to do that?
Common Sense Doge ⏸️
@commonsensedoge
·
534d
Great point from @GaryMarcus . If we don't make the AI companies liable for large harms, the public (and taxpayers) are liable.

https://garymarcus.substack.com/…

The statement and the preceding conversation constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive discussion about AI governance, regulation, and the implications of specific legislative measures. The tone is analytical and aims to contribute to the debate on how best to regulate AI to balance innovation and public safety.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm by advocating for global AI governance, which could potentially lead to more consistent and effective regulations, thereby reducing risks associated with AI. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding and empathy by acknowledging the need for global AI governance, which implies a consideration of the broader impacts of AI on society. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by responding to a previous point about the challenges of compliance with different regulations, suggesting a solution (global AI governance) rather than attacking the previous speaker. [+1]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses the platform to advocate for a better regulatory framework for AI, which aligns with the principle of using influence for the betterment of society. [+1]