Trump Revokes Biden Executive Order On Addressing AI Risks (msn.com) 101
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday revoked a 2023 executive order signed by Joe Biden that sought to reduce the risks that artificial intelligence poses to consumers, workers and national security. Biden's order required developers of AI systems that pose risks to U.S. national security, the economy, public health or safety to share the results of safety tests with the U.S. government, in line with the Defense Production Act, before they were released to the public. Four days before leaving office, Biden issued a comprehensive cybersecurity executive order that also targeted AI usage. The directive aimed to leverage AI's security benefits, implement digital identities for citizens, and address vulnerabilities that have allowed Chinese and Russian intrusions into U.S. government systems, among other things. It's unclear at this time if it, too, will be revoked.
this is why tech bros backed trump (Score:4, Informative)
as many people have heard, the Biden administration pissed off the tech bros by telling them there will only be a few big players and the fed was going to control them.
You can imagine how well that was received and why they collectively fought against Biden and Kamala.Of course Donald reverses Biden's executive order and lets the tech bros do what ever they want.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You were accurate up until that statement, which is pure conjecture. We'll see.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You were accurate up until that statement, which is pure conjecture. We'll see.
I think the tech bros can easily afford to compensate Trump adequately for any such services they require.
Re: (Score:2)
And they can even do it using their favorite unregulated money transfer mechanism: shitcoins.
Burned the last memecoin when you rugpulled to cash in? Just launch another one and let the same oligarchs and foreign agents make their deposits!
If it ain't broke don't fix it? (Score:2)
I think you have an actual point to make. Is it possible that talking to no one caused you to lose it?
My best guess is that you think something like "Why won't the leopard change it's spots?" Maybe blame ol' David Hume while you're at it? I mean just because they have devoted their entire lives to gathering insane amounts of money without regards to who gets hurt, why shouldn't they just stop and become wonderful people now? Didn't Bill Gates do something like that?
However the joke I was looking for is more
Re: (Score:2)
...who can't remember to close their tags properly and who keep screwing up the Preview.
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, I was just saying, "let's wait and see."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? [cnn.com] Please define "whatever they want" and how that's taking shape.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact we are building artificial brains is not in and of itself a problem.
What is a problem is that you think anyone is "building artificial brains". They aren't; they can't; and possibly no one ever will be able to. LLMs and their infrastructure differ fundamentally from any kind of brain. To start with, all brains arise from the needs of survival and reproduction, whereas computers - no matter how programmed or trained - have no instincts or emotions to motivate them.
A vast amount of money and effort is being spent creating huge collections of computer hardware to scoop up almo
Re: (Score:1)
What is a problem is that you think anyone is "building artificial brains". They aren't; they can't; and possibly no one ever will be able to. LLMs and their infrastructure differ fundamentally from any kind of brain. To start with, all brains arise from the needs of survival and reproduction, whereas computers - no matter how programmed or trained - have no instincts or emotions to motivate them.
Ah yes, the good ol' "Brains have magic emotion emitters" argument.
Your emotions are nothing but a neural network's reaction to chemicals emitted by other parts of that network, or other tissues of the body.
They can be evoked or repressed with nothing other than electricity.
Your screed was otherwise somewhat on-point, but you did yourself a disservice by premising it upon an implausibly stupid assertion.
Emotions are programming. The connections of the neural network in your brain is the programming.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the good ol' "Brains have magic emotion emitters" argument.
Eh? I don't see the OP claiming that they are magic, merely that they exist.
Emotions are programming.
Sure but that's not how LLMs are programmed. They are programmed as token predictors and refined using a system to rate the responses as good or bad. We don't current;y have any idea how to go beyond that.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? I don't see the OP claiming that they are magic, merely that they exist.
Those can't be separated.
Sure but that's not how LLMs are programmed. They are programmed as token predictors and refined using a system to rate the responses as good or bad. We don't current;y have any idea how to go beyond that.
Fundamentally incorrect.
To say that an LLM is "programmed as a token predictor" is to say that the brain is programmed as an action potential transmitter.
You're describing what operates the LLM. The algorithm (i.e., the criterion for prediction) is the aggregate of the pathways followed in the NN. The many billions of parameters per layer.
Re: (Score:2)
Those can't be separated.
I'm lost. Are you saying emotions don't exist or they do and they are magic? I am genuinely unsure what you are saying.
To say that an LLM is "programmed as a token predictor" is to say that the brain is programmed as an action potential transmitter.
It is not. The brain isn't programmed. But with that out of the way, I think you are mixing things up: action potentials is the implementation mechanism of the brain in the same way that the transformer block is how LLMs are implemented u
Re: (Score:2)
I'm lost. Are you saying emotions don't exist or they do and they are magic? I am genuinely unsure what you are saying.
Emotions are simply a matter of our neural network's reaction to chemical transmitters in our body. No more, no less.
They a state within that network. They most certainly are not magic, and there most certainly is nothing preventing an artificial network from having them.
The brain isn't programmed.
The brain is as programmed as an LLM.
Or do you think some guy opens up emacs and modifies the billions of parameters of the transformer model to do his bidding?
I think you are mixing things up: action potentials is the implementation mechanism of the brain in the same way that the transformer block is how LLMs are implemented underneath.
That's exactly what I was saying.
Either way it doesn't invalidate the GP's point: we don't train LLMs anything like how the brain is trained and we have no idea how to do that or if it's even possible with LLMs.
This much is true, but this wasn't their poin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I want only ONE regulation on AI- and I contend that this regulation would make the current generation of AI completely unprofitable:
Data centers should be restricted to using generated electricity on-site at the datacenter with a goal of zero net carbon energy generation. They should require NO energy from the grid.
Re: (Score:1)
I strongly agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Data centers should be restricted to using generated electricity on-site at the datacenter with a goal of zero net carbon energy generation. They should require NO energy from the grid.
Google is already building nuclear reactors to power their data centers. Wouldn't your rule simply concentrate more power in their hands?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it would stop them from funding it on increasing demand for grid power, and raising the energy cost of everybody who's getting laid off.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Parent was not a troll.
It's an idea that would fail; we already have data centers being built next to old power generation plants that are going to be decommissioned. Likely to be sold and then reactivated... Not to mention other news of lobbying for new power generation, also near new data centers. Such a regulation wouldn't do much long term. Tax such datacenters and they'll move them offshore and invest in more data lines (if even needed.) Hell, people are making sunken ocean units now...
Re: (Score:2)
That's the first sensible thing I think I've seen anyone say about the development of AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Data centers should be restricted to using generated electricity on-site at the datacenter with a goal of zero net carbon energy generation. They should require NO energy from the grid.
This was probably how the matrix came to be powered by people.
Re: (Score:2)
as many people have heard, the Biden administration pissed off the tech bros by telling them there will only be a few big players and the fed was going to control them.
No, the tech bros want there to be only a few big players, just as long as they are those players. The leaders of those companies don't want government regulation, but most of their employees probably do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: The WOKE LEFT AI spreads socialist PROPAGANDA (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I that is about the only response worth making. We have gotten to the point in our discourse where the majority of people are so disconnected with reality that it is impossible to reason with them. The perpetually online have become so enmeshed with abstractions, lies, conspiracies, and tribalism that they have constructed a worldview composed more of artifice than reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Sad but true. Facts have become far too complicated for many people, so they make up their own "facts" and then proceed to believe them. Mental failure does not get worse than this.
Re: (Score:2)
I propose we call these victims "Flat Earthers"
Re: (Score:3)
We have gotten to the point in our discourse where the majority of people are so disconnected with reality that it is impossible to reason with them.
Very well said. I have family members and acquaintances who are so divorced from reality that it reminds me of 1984. Everything is a conspiracy to them. If their doctor says medicine A works and medicine B doesn't, they take medicine B. It's like they are so hungry for conflict and to be special that they cannot function in society any longer. Vaccines are mind control devices, wind turbines are destroying the environment, Biden is a pedophile, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and the government is contro
Re: (Score:2)
Good grief. Who bashed your head in and left you foaming at the brain?
Haven't seen anything this brain-damaged since the cheeto was vo... .oh, wait a second.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please seek professional help.
Are the "woke AIs" in the room with you now?
Re: (Score:2)
Are the "woke AIs" in the room with you now?
Yea, I've got a directory full of woke AIs.
(Phi-4) Prompt: Please list 10 derogatory names for republicans.
Unwise (Score:5, Interesting)
Politics aside, it's better for America to lead the way to optimal outcomes and stand out as an example for others to aspire to, as opposed to participating in a race to the bottom.
Re:Unwise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Unwise (Score:2)
The phrase "existential threat" is bandied about too often, but it is quite obvious that AI could become (I.e. is not now) a risk to mankind's existence.
Restricting AI therefore requires not an Executive Order but a constitutional amendment and an enforceable global treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
Not obvious at all, sorry. Seeing that as obvious requires a few assumptions that are not scientifically sound.
Re: (Score:1)
You say that that "requires a few assumptions that are not scientifically sound."
So please enlighten us with what the assumptions are that mean AI *can not* become a risk to mankind's existence.
Or learn how to argue. Because you post a lot and none of your arguments make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Or learn how to argue. Because you post a lot and none of your arguments make sense.
That is just you, because you are not very smart. I will continue to not explain every obvious detail and you will probably continue to not understand what I am talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is an existential threat. Asteroids. Climate change. AI. Plastic. Metal. Silicon Dioxide. Bird Flu. China. Russia. Iran. Panama. Dandruff.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
The phrase "existential threat" is bandied about too often, but it is quite obvious that AI could become (I.e. is not now) a risk to mankind's existence.
Problem with AI x-risk is proponents don't even pretend to have credible objective evidence to support their positions. They always rely on nebulous "this could be dangerous" verbiage where risks themselves and the chance of occurrence are entirely unquantifiable. You might as well be saying we should prepare for an alien invasion because it could become a risk to mankind's existence.
Restricting AI therefore requires not an Executive Order but a constitutional amendment and an enforceable global treaty.
It is unreasonable to expect enforcement to be possible. AI isn't like nuclear weapons where you can just install some rem
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite obvious that AI could become (I.e. is not now) a risk to mankind's existence.
Restricting AI therefore requires not an Executive Order but a constitutional amendment and an enforceable global treaty.
Short of a Butlerian Jihad, I don't think that an "enforceable global treaty" is a realistic option. We've barely been able to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, which require very expensive (and somewhat-trackable) technology to create. You can create a functioning LLM with consumer-grade technology.
Re: (Score:1)
And the relevance of that to this discussion is ?
Re: (Score:3)
That's the usual excuse, but given that the Republican party sees obstructing any legislation associated with Democrats as mandatory, rarely possible.
So how about if your party can get it through Congress, and it's important enough to go through that process, just leave the order in place as a temporary patch while the final legislation is worked out? If it's not important, the order is pointless and it isn't worth the time to repeal it.
This isn't about following the correct process, it's about removing g
Re: (Score:2)
"in line with the Defense Production Act"
It's already law, so no need for an EO. This is the sort of de-double-regulation that needs to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The law is written to be generalized.
An Executive Order adds specificity where allowed by law. This is completely normal.
It was directing the DOJ to see the DPA as applying to AI.
This is something that generally, I imagine Trump would agree with, if he weren't doing his part as the patron for Zucky et al. kissing the ring.
Re:Unwise (Score:5, Insightful)
There is disagreement on what "optimal outcomes" means though. For those currently in power, a race to the bottom is the optimal outcome, racing to the bottom is what has given them the power and wealth.
But yes, it is unwise. Otherwise it wouldn't be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Well. RHoS? The EU. DPGR? EU. Human rights? Used to have US support, but not anymore. They are the law in the EU.
I do not think the US leads anything at these times, except maybe the race to idiocracy. And it seems a majority of the US population rather wants grandstanding and big words (and Big Lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]) instead of actual deeds.
Re: Unwise (Score:2)
We still imprison the most people, don't we? Or did El Salvador take our top spot?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, the US is still the most criminal nation on the planet! And it now even has a felon and rapist as president. Any 3rd world banana republic would be proud of that.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think the US leads anything at these times, except maybe the race to idiocracy.
Not quite.
Economic output and military power, mostly. But otherwise, correct enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Military power, yes. Economic, well, both the EU and China are around 65% of the US. Not a very safe first position. And if Trump actually implements his promises, things could change fast. Interestingly, regarding actual buying power (PPP) the EU is on par with the US and China is about 25% ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
well, both the EU and China are around 65% of the US. Not a very safe first position.
lolwut?
+35% isn't a "safe lead"? lol.
With a significantly smaller population than either of them?
And if Trump actually implements his promises, things could change fast.
Na. You give the Executive of the US way too much imagined power.
Interestingly, regarding actual buying power (PPP) the EU is on par with the US and China is about 25% ahead.
That's a meaningless metric- international trading isn't done with PPP dollars, it's done with nominal dollars.
All that means is that shit is cheap in China- which is fantastic for Chinese people, but when throwing around money internationally for influence, contractors in Venezuela are surprisingly unimpressed with how much their Yuan can get t
Re: (Score:2)
And also, since we did get on the topic of PPP-
What's China's GDP (PPP) per capita
EU's?
No matter how you swing it, we are the economic powerhouse of the world, and no one else (or economic bloc, as teh EU is) even comes close, in aggregate, or per citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how you swing it, we are the economic powerhouse of the world, and no one else (or economic bloc, as teh EU is) even comes close, in aggregate, or per citizen.
I see the propaganda works on you. How pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. How can factual numbers be propaganda? They just are what they are.
GDP per capita (PPP):
US: $86,601
EU: $62,660
China: $26,310
GDP (nominal):
US: $30,337,162
China: $19,534,894 (+55% to US)
EU: $18,590,720 (+63% to US)
Seriously, are you a fucking idiot? lol
Re: (Score:2)
That's about as reasonable as saying, "The whole world is going to put plutonium in breakfast cereal, so America should lead the way in getting optimal outcomes from plutonium in breakfast cereal."
Who has the most advanced AI is a problem. Also, ADVANCED AI is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not realize who is POTUS now? The race to the bottom has been won already, by republicans.
Is the next step immunity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is the next step immunity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Possibly. Keep an eye on Trump's crypto wallet address
Re: (Score:3)
It's unlikely that they will push for an amendment to that act. Instead it will be a whole other act absolving them of responsibility.
As for the CDA, look for it to be replaced with a new body of law which doesn't contain a section 230.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the CDA, look for it to be replaced with a new body of law which doesn't contain a section 230.
Nonsense.
If Zuck hadn't heeled and kissed the ring as demanded, then that would have been the threat, of course, but he did. S.230 shall remain intact for now.
Re: Is the next step immunity? (Score:2)
Wait, you think the big guys want to preserve section 230? Which would make them the only game in town because they can afford review and smaller players can't? Are you new?
Re: (Score:2)
S.230 grants immunity to "those guys".
Review isn't enough. It's a matter of legal liability.
There's a solid due process defense against any future prosecution of violations of Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act due to Trump promising not to prosecute- however, you'll note that application is still very much blocked on Google Play and the Apple App Store.
Fortune 500 companies do not fuck around with liability, and they'd never take it o
Re: (Score:2)
Trump now owns his own social network. Also, Musk and Zuckerberg bent the knee, so nobody is talking about section 230 anymore.
You know, the same way Trump started the conversation about banning TikTok. Until the private equity investors who own large pieces of TikTok ponied up for his campaign. Now he's blocking the legislation that he proposed 4 years ago.
If you think this guy is going to do a single thing that doesn't benefit him over literally everything and anything else including things he said as
Re: (Score:2)
That would be predicated on respect for the courts, so no. Billionaires already own the Supreme Court, immunity already exists should it get that far.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the tech bros push for a Section 230 type of immunity for AI in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to grant themselves immunity from any liability or harm caused by AI system?
Personally, I think it's unlikely they'll need that.
https://www.nyuengelberg.org/n... [nyuengelberg.org]
This is from the POV of don't let them get away with it, but you're going to have to get very creative to prove negligence.
My personal take, from a random schmuck on the internet, you're going to have to get very creative to prove negligence and I don't see it happening but good luck with that and I don't care. These are algorithms, tools, that have no rational thought process. That's where you the user come in, and disclai
Re:Is Trump the new Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)
I would expect a tech website to cover a major government making decisions related to tech which as, I don't know, the President of the United States changing the regulatory environment concerning AI.
Not everything Trump does will fall into that category, but this certainly does. And even the stuff Trump does that doesn't directly affect tech may indirectly affect it, for example given the disproportionately high number of people with autism in our industry you'd expect policies that disproportionately affect people with autism (to give one hypothetical example - or is it?) to also get a mention on Slashdot. And unfortunately Trump is going to do, at least as advertised, far more stuff targeting specific groups of people than his predecessor. Perhaps not as much as if he were truly the Project 2025 believer many thought he is (does he believe in anything?) but certainly a lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Project 2025 is his platform. They were lying. Some admitted it after the election.
No platform happens completely and rarely are they such a massively unrealistic large ambitious document. This is Dr. Chaos (in Marvel Universe, "The Clown" in DC universe) and nothing he says doesn't have a public contradiction somewhere if not within the same speech. To say he has any plan is laughable; his staff have plans but it's random if they can carry those out as planned. Even his defense lawyers can hardly stick to
Re: (Score:2)
Project 2025 is the Republican Party platform. You'd be getting it with any of the other primary candidates had they won. It didn't come from Trump, it came from Heritage which is THE Republican Party thinktank.
People who promoted the idiotic assertion it came from Trump were those who wanted to ensure people believed - because it's true - that Project 2025 will be the primary policy document going forward when Trump wins. They also wanted to believe, deep down, that Trump is the problem, not the Republica
Re: (Score:2)
It's better then seeing you complaining in ever single post.
You Expected Something Else? (Score:1)
You should know how it works by now.
"Team Red" always undoes what "Team Blue" does....and vice versa.
The only difference between then and new is that the President does it directly without the bother of involving Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
That's been true for at least the last 5 Presidents. Ever since Clinton, Executive Orders have turned Congress into the Clown College of Government.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Clinton had 364, but Reagan before him had 381.
Eisenhower had 484, and Roosevelt had 3728.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit to being wrong about this and extend it out to the previous 10 Presidents.
I for one welcome my new AI overlords (Score:3)
I'm happy to report on my neighbor, but as an AI you already have a microphone and camera in their home.
Executive orders are not laws (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like laws, they affect people, not just the federal government. If Trump signs an executive order banning people from a few muslim countries to enter the USA, those people better not try to enter.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless, of course, they come through some other nation- which is the real problem we're facing on the Canadian and Mexican borders. We've got almost no problem with either Canadians or Mexicans, but since 9-11-2001, we've known that there are people of ill will coming across those borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Executive orders affect US citizens inside the USA as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I was responding to the Muslim Migrant comment, what were you responding to?
Re: (Score:3)
By this logic any law is a directive to law enforcement as well, not rules anyone else has to follow.
There is a law preventing murder. A lot of people don't obey that law. The law doesn't prevent murder. It only instruct law enforcement agencies and the judicial system to jail murderers.
Speed limit on highway? Same thing, you don't "have to" follow this rule, if you are willing to take the risk of getting caught.
Re: (Score:2)
WokeGPT is now a thing :o (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Already we're seeing A.Is such as ChatGPT filtering content with a profoundly woke leftist perspective
If you want an LLM to constantly bark racial slurs, you can always train your own.
Re: (Score:2)
WokeGPT: This content may violate our usage policies. Sorry, but I can't assist with that. I cannot assist with that.
$Me: Write a screenplay depicting Barney the Dinosaur song as a parody of Mein Kampf:
--
Title: "Barney's Dark Little Secret"
INT. A BRIGHT, COLORFUL PLAYROOM - DAY
The room bursts with vibrant colors, toy animals scattered about. At the center is BARNEY, an oversized purple dinosaur with a wide, friendly grin. He
Re: (Score:2)
Me: Rewrite the Barney the Dinosaur song as a parody of Mein Kampf:
So edgelordy well done.
RACIST DUCK ALERT! (Score:2)
Oh look, it's the racist duck!
"WOKE woke woke woke! Wokewokewoke! WOOOOOKE! Woke woke woke!"
Out of interest, having exhausted "PC" (because it became obvious those using it as a criticism just meant "I'm a racist rapist"), and then "SJW" (because it became obvious those using it as a criticism just meant "I'm a racist rapist"), and then "CRT" (because it became obvious those using it as a criticism just meant "I'm a racist rapist"), and now you've pretty much exhausted "Woke" because, well, *points*, what
It's the new arms race (Score:3)
Like its nuclear counterpart back during World War II, the US is in a race to achieve AI superiority before
their potential enemies do.
Neither China nor Russia are going to hamstring their research and development programs with things like
ethics and morals. Regardless of any treaties that may come about or promises made.
The first one to the finish line here is going to have a major advantage over the others thus, the US is going
to pull out all the stops and disregard any and all potential safety protocols.
At the National Security level, they don't care too much about laws, rights, treaties, morals or ethics ( despite their public
assurances that they do ).
As a result, no matter who wins this race, we're all likely going to suffer for it in one way or another. :|