The executive order comes after a series of non-binding agreements with AI companies.

The order has eight goals: to create new standards for AI safety and security, protect privacy, advance equity and civil rights, stand up for consumers, patients, and students, support workers, promote innovation and competition, advance US leadership in AI technologies, and ensure the responsible and effective government use of the technology.

  • jsdz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    AI that is used to monitor cameras and identify our faces to track everywhere everyone goes: Why would that concern you? Do you have something to hide, citizen?

    AI that might be used to generate agitprop, competing with conventional advertising: HOLY SHIT we need a new international treaty right away!

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    More and more of these “safety” proposals just serve to kill open source AI, only allowing a few mega corps deem what we can do with them while remaining advertising friendly of course. Freedom dies in the name of “safety”, especially technology that is governed by people who have zero concept of how it works besides a scary ambiguous buzzword.

  • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s the point if they’re non-binding? AI should be privacy friendly and open, otherwise we end up with some serious problems down the line.

    • donuts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      The President has limited authority and cannot make laws unilaterally. For sensible AI regulations and laws we will certainly need Congress to do its job, and clearly they’re pretty damn bad at that.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We can joke about it all we want but the reason is that things like that, naming of post offices, etc. are basically not political and easy to pass quickly. Real legislation takes time.

    • bioemerl@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re unemployed for a reason. They’re a cult and not actually doing anything worthwhile.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          AI ethics people aren’t about privacy.

          They’re running around pretending there is some imminent technological singularity that’s going to wipe out humanity and we have to stop it before it happens.

          I have no issue with privacy, but AI has very little to do with privacy beyond “don’t let the government track you”.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to address the “takeoff” problem: the use of AI to build more-capable AI, the creation of autonomous AI systems that can develop self-protection drives (see Omohundro 2008), etc.

    AI systems should not be allowed to control economic resources until alignment is solved. As it stands, if a major company were to turn over its management to an autonomous AI system, there’s a good chance that’s game over for humans – including the humans who made that decision.

    The safety problem of autonomous AI systems able to (for instance) obtain their own resources or optimize their own code have been known since long before GPTs or deepfakes were a thing.

    Unfortunately “AI safety” has largely been coopted to mean “stop humans from using deepfakes to bully or deceive other humans” rather than “stop fully-automated corporations from taking over the economy and running the planet with even less humane ethics even than human-run corporations do.”

    (Think selfishness or greed are a problem today? Consider a megacorp run by an entity that literally has no other drives but to protect and expand itself, thinks billions of times faster than any human board of directors, and cannot die. Say what you like about Bill Gates, he at least seems to enjoy curing diseases.)

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    President Joe Biden signed an executive order providing rules around generative AI, ahead of any legislation coming from lawmakers.

    Several government agencies are tasked with creating standards to protect against the use of AI to engineer biological materials, establish best practices around content authentication, and build advanced cybersecurity programs.

    The National Institute of Standards and Safety (NIST) will be responsible for developing standards to “red team” AI models before public release, while the Department of Energy and Department of Homeland Security are directed to address the potential threat of AI to infrastructure and the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and cybersecurity risks.

    Developers of large AI models like OpenAI ‘s GPT and Meta’s Llama 2 are required to share safety test results.

    It also orders government agencies to provide guidelines for landlords, Federal benefits programs, and contracts on how to prevent AI from exacerbating discrimination.

    These were later turned into a series of agreements between the White House and several AI players, including Meta, Google, OpenAI, Nvidia, and Adobe.


    The original article contains 555 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Good thing we have a guy in office who grew up without a fucking computer.

    👴🇺🇸

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, I’d rather have someone who grew up with some semblance of modern technology be the one at the helm enacted policy relating to it.

        • AnonTwo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly given the outrage you’re giving in this thread I don’t feel like any regulation would make you happy, regardless of who did it.

          • foggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            …outrage?

            You got outrage from an old man emoji?

            That’s on you.

            • AnonTwo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Outrage is doubling down when people gave completely reasonable answers to what you said.

                • AnonTwo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Well if you’re fine with textbook answers, then you’ll be fine with people pointing out, in textbook answer, that the president has no real bearing on this since it’s not being written by him.

                  Or if you’re not fine with a textbook answer, then we can circle back to you being outraged for doubling down. Your call 👍

        • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          American legislative policy affects literally every individual, business, and industry in the country. Do you expect the president to be personally experienced in IT, medicine, law, military operations, transit, construction, manufacturing, agriculture, marketing, finance, distribution, logistics, food service, sales, sports, fire service, flight, and literally every industry that exists in the United States?

        • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not even the problem. He could still make good policies, since he’s not even making them himself. The issue is that they’re apparently non-binding, which means it’s simply a worthless gesture at best.

    • nurple@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You do know that Biden didn’t personally draft this himself, right?

      It delegates the specifics to agencies with relevant expertise. That’s how the executive branch works.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh, sorry, for a minute there I thought he was the commander in chief and that the policies enacted under his supervision were to reflect on him directly

        Silly me.

        • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That was pretty silly. Especially given that “commander-in-chief” refers to his position in the U.S. military structure and has no bearing on his legislation and domestic policies.

        • Hereforpron2@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a big difference between “reflecting on him” and actually being the one to write the policy. I don’t see why the former is an issue.

        • fubo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s the “unitary executive” theory, which is specifically GOP doctrine.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would be relevant if he were the one writing the policy, which he’s not.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yawn.

      There’s plenty to criticise, but this particular take is fucking moronic.

      Everyone grew up before insert current new tech.

      I grew up before cell phones, PC’s, internet, streaming, torrenting, etc, etc, and I bet a years salary I could explain all of those things in pretty good detail and many, many, many, many more than you, extemporaneously, (i.e. at the drop of a hat) , while drunk and high.

      Would you say the same about LBJ, who is THE reason we have NASA, moon landings, and all the derivative tech (including the internet you’re currently using)?

      Pick a dozen other valid reasons to criticise him, this take isn’t.

          • teft@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m basing my comment on my life experience of growing up in the 80s and 90s. Most people in the time period did not use computers. A lot of people thought they were nerdy. So someone like Joe Biden who is a “cool guy” politician almost certainly never touched one until he needed one for work. Total supposition on my part but I would put money on it.

    • nurple@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      The National Institute of Standards and Safety (NIST) will be responsible for developing standards to “red team” AI models before public release, while the Department of Energy and Department of Homeland Security are directed to address the potential threat of AI to infrastructure and the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and cybersecurity risks.

      The rules will be developed by agencies with relevant expertise.

      • bioemerl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those agencies don’t have relevant experience and this will largely be guided by shitty upper level breauricratic types.

        • nurple@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          breauricratic

          I do not trust your assessment of their expertise.

          Cheekiness aside, there are plenty of people with tons of tech expertise working in the federal apparatus. Let’s hope they’re put on this project.