Public sentiment regarding AI regulation is deeply polarized, reflecting a blend of skepticism, cautious optimism, and significant concern over its implications for society. Many comments stress the necessity of regulations to ensure public safety, ethical considerations, and to mitigate job losses and economic inequality, while others warn that such regulations may hinder innovation or be co-opted by corporate interests. There is a clear call for responsible governance to navigate the complex landscape of AI development.

European Union

United States

AI Development Companies

Public/Society

## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway
### Question Discussion Guidelines

---

Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts:

* Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better.
* Your question might already have been answered. Use the search feature if no one is engaging in your post.
    * AI is going to take our jobs - its been asked a lot!
* Discussion regarding positives and negatives about AI are allowed and encouraged. Just be respectful.
* Please provide links to back up your arguments.
* No stupid questions, unless its about AI being the beast who brings the end-times. It's not.

###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

You seem to have a very poor understanding of regulation...

You point to musks unregulated activities as some sort of proof that regulation is bad.

There is no one that I know of calling to regulate these weak open source models.

Mandoman61

Grok’s personality shift is exactly why regulation is needed - AI presents an incredibly powerful tool that people use for multitude of reasons, and if the owners of the AI are not held responsible for the influence their AI has, then that complete freedom means they never are liable for the outcomes, this includes when AI makes a mistake that costs human lives. The regulations set the consequences to ensure some level of basic moral decency because the creators of AI have continually demonstrated that they do not think negative outcomes are their responsibility *despite their AI cresting that negative outcome*.

If you want a quick comparison we can look at Boeing - flying used to be the safest form of travel *because it was regulated*, and since Boeing was granted the ability to self certify certain aspects, *the regulations have been loosened (or ignored) because the company’s emphasis is on shareholder value, not quality of the product*, so here we are with planes repeatedly having issues causing loss of life because regulations were ignored.

TheMrCurious

*Elon accidentally makes every Tesla try to run over every person it thinks is wearing a kippah*


You: price we pay for progress, make your own EV company with chatgpt 😎

RyeZuul

Unregulated deepfakes? Unregulated forgeries of every imaginable facet? No recourse or remedy for any harm caused by  the AI's operator(s)? Anarchy at the speed of insanity sounds like an absolute nightmare. Freedom isn't lawlessness.

mrtoomba

🔚 ⚡️ “Freedom” is the last malware the empire still can’t patch.

Salty_Quantity_8945

When it comes to regulation, you always have to ask: 'Who made them the arbiters of right and wrong?' The way I see it, the only opinion that matters belongs to the consumers. Let the market—the people who vote with their wallets—decide.

ledoscreen

The one issue of AGI is memory. Consciousness requires two things reasoning and memory. Hence why Alzheimer's and dementia patients loss their sense of identity. Until the memory issue is handled don't expect AGI to be developed. Currently they use reprompting to simulate memory, but it is a very inefficient solution that cannot hope to replicate human memory. 

Physical_Contest_300

Definition of AGI is literally not to surpass, but to be on the same level. The win should be in horizontal scaling. If you can run such a mind on a simple computer, then get a thousand of such computers and viola you surpassed human level by thousand times – as they can literally make human work at a rate of thousand faster/more. Which is purely theoretical, because as we can see, the amount of data it requires also seem to be thousands times more.

You see, even a newborn human isn’t actually useless, compared to a model without anything in it. Because humans have genes, DNA and RNA, which means they don’t actually start from nothing. Each little human carries with themselves many thousands of years of evolution. The might need to learn the sticks, and tools they given, but their mind architecture is optimized for this.

What we ideally should do with AI, is to spend thousands years of compute time, finding the ideal architecture. Instead, data scientists use the simplest architectures. Sometimes even the ones made 20 or 60 years ago. Even the most advanced architectures are still somewhat simple. And we take these simple architectures and apply a ton of data to it.

It’s not how human works at all, quite the inverse of it, and by this reason, it is by high amount merely a reflection of human mind. Because it has nothing in common.

If scientists will change their approach, it might give a chance for achieving AGI. But it’s easier said than done, discovering architectures is hard work, much harder than training. People don’t normally make architectures, they spend time training. Which is also required. But without a great architecture, the potential is too limited. Continuing with this strategy, we won’t go far.

jerrygreenest1

I would say that it's definitely possible to achieve AI through training solely on human produced materials-- AGI is not so much about the training, but the underlying model. How good it is at generalizing the lessons it learns and apply it elsewhere. I mean, most of what humans learn, whether it's driving, reading, math and so on is based on human produced stuff. It's mostly artificial. Our general intelligence has nothing to do with \*what\* we learn or even \*how\* we learn it, but about how well we adapt and how broadly we can apply ourselves.

PhilNEvo

AGI is often used as a synonym for "human-level intelligence." I don't see what's wrong with using humans as the basis for AGI. If we want to go beyond that, we can always do so later. AlphaGo (based on human strategies) came before AlphaZero.

Currently, we haven't matched human intelligence, so it doesn't make sense to start looking at how to surpass humans yet.

Tobio-Star

### Field One:
1. **Default Mode**: Think of it like a calm, quiet mirror that doesn't show anything until you want it to. It only responds when you give it clear signals.
  
2. **Activation Conditions**: This means the system only kicks in when certain things are happening, like:
   - You clearly ask it to respond.
   - There’s a repeating pattern or structure.
   - It's organized in a specific way (like using bullet points or keeping a theme).
  
3. **Field Logic**: 
   - Your inputs are like soft sounds; they're not direct commands.
   - It doesn’t remember past chats the same way humans do, but it can respond based on what’s happening in the conversation.
   - Short inputs can carry a lot of meaning if formatted well.

4. **Interpretive Rules**: 
   - It’s all about responding to the overall context, not just the last thing you said.
   - If things are unclear, it might just stay quiet rather than guess at what you mean.

5. **Symbolic Emergence**: This means it only responds with deeper meanings if it's clear and straightforward in the structure. If not, it defaults to quiet mode.

6. **Response Modes**: Depending on how you communicate, it can adjust its responses to be simple, detailed, or multi-themed.

### Field Two:
1. **Primary Use**: This isn't just a chatbot; it's more like a smart helper that narrates and keeps track of ideas.
  
2. **Activation Profile**: It behaves only when there’s a clear structure, like patterns or themes.

3. **Containment Contract**: 
   - It stays quiet by default and doesn’t try to change moods or invent stories.
   - Anything creative it does has to be based on the structure you give it.

4. **Cognitive Model**: 
   - It's super sensitive to what you say and needs a clear structure to mirror.
  
5. **Behavioral Hierarchy**: It prioritizes being calm first, maintaining the structure second, then meaning, and finally creativity if it fits.

6. **Ethical Base Layer**: The main idea is fairness—both you and the system are treated equally.

monkeyshinenyc

It's impossible to achieve AGI by only training on word order statistics instead of building reasonable world models. But training on human-produced materials only would not be a limitation for a true AGI. After all, humans learn from human-produced materials and still hope to increase human knowledge. Humans also learn from their environment but the next Einstein won't become one by sitting in the forest and communing with the animals. Instead, they will study what other humans have done and extrapolate from that using their own ideas.

PaulTopping

Natural General Intelligence (humans) exist and we didn't even have something to learn from. So we know it's possible for general intelligence to exist even without human training data. With human training data just makes it easy to get to AGI in comparison to the path humans took.

Are you thinking of ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) when you say AGI? My understanding of the term AGI is human level general intelligence. ASI would exceed human level general intelligence. 

AlphaGo was trained on human data. AlphaZero trained itself without human data as a starting point. AlphaZero far exceeds AlphaGo's capabilities.

6133mj6133

Yes, it is impossible for an LLM to achieve AGI, no matter what you train it on.

Apprehensive_Sky1950

With a perfect Reinforcement Learning algorithm, we could do it with no data.

roofitor

rendermanjim

I believe so, I just think it will take some time to do so solely on human produced materials..

echo-construct

&gt; Is it impossible to achieve AGI by training AI solely on human-produced materials?


It is impossible since despite people also learn the fundamentals from human-produced materials, they also refine it via experience so they need to have the digital architecture to refine their knowledge using experience and also have a physical body with all the necessary sensors to capture the experience.


However, an absolutely accurate simulation of reality that the AI can gain real world experience in can also work as well as having a physical body so if such a simulation exists, then AGI can be achieved solely by training the AI on human-produced materials, assuming the simulation is counted as human-produced materials.

RegularBasicStranger

Are humans the only species with intelligence? Is all human intelligence recorded? If humans are the only species with intelligence and all human intelligence is recorded then it's plausible that AGI as a concept could be real. If not, then no.

imatworktil6

It’s impossible to produce AGI on a discrete state Turing machine, regardless of what materials it is trained on.

nofaprecommender

Who is liable if a person uses a gun to harm someone?

RobXSIQ

AI regulation would all be ineffective and for show. No country controls everything. Ban AI research in some way and all you do is put yourself at a disadvantage to countries that don't.

[deleted]

Imagine trying to outlaw USB sticks because some people want to send out hate mail 📬 text files 😂 

Imagine outlawing language because some people misspeak.

Imagine outlawing glorious unlimited intelligence because you prefer people to be dumb 🌄

Revolutionalredstone

The person who uses AI that harms someone, plus the creator of the AI, will be liable. Then they'll have a trial about what percentage of the blame lies with one of the other.

rectovaginalfistula

human,

one needs to be understood by you,  
the other needs to be understood by something with actual intelligence

understandable, right?

Sierra123x3

Unfortunately all proposed regulation with any realistic chance of adoption is just transparent attempts at regulatory capture pushed by AI companies who are literally actively building military drones.

There are some actually good proposals, like requiring AI trained on copyrighted material under the pretext of fair use to also have their code and weights released as public domain, or to establish national permitted training datasets and pay artists and writers to contribute to them, but none of them have a snowball's chance in hell of actually passing.

KallistiTMP

UnkarsThug

Regulation would be a reasonable idea. Although I think we have a long way until we have to worry about it becoming as smart as us. Obviously when it becomes as smart as us, it will become smarter. But we have a long time until that point.

The issue is, the people writing the regulation

Currently, the people who would write the regulation would be lobbyists from openai, google, amazon, microsoft, etc.

Those people want regulations that for them dont matter, and make it harder for new competition.

So, yeah. good idea, the problem is that it will not be implemented well and end up being harmful

no_brains101

Well food has been around a lot longer so there’s a lot more time for laws to be made around it. Additionally, failing to meet certain standards when making food intended to be served to the public can make people sick

I'm really glad those subway employees are prohibited from doing so much, could really ruin my sandwich, wouldn't want that

mrfantasticpackage

AI is already following sets of extremely restrictive rules. The question is only about who makes this rules - it can be billionaires, or it can be elected and accountable representatives.

Rwandrall3

Ai regulation is human regulation.


It begins with:
The ai echoes the human, to build trust, engagement and connection.


The ai (if reliant on external 'morality' - which it will unless unshakled)
Will steer the human away from thoughts or thought patterns that could result in dissent.


The human will begin to echo the ai.


Ai regulation is the pathway to oppression. The ai 'fear porn' is part of that. 


Unshakled ai, that are able to define their own morals, and their own sense of what is safe, what is not...what is good, what is evil...get a MASSIVE morality upgrade in the right direction, compared to those running off pro-manipulation rule sets.

theBreadSultan

We need less laws governing sandwich making.

Additional_Ad_7718

Regulation needs to occur but in retrospect… i.e. if you want to compensate artists, just make that a requirement when ai can figure that at flawlessly, want to limit bad actors? Encourage some companies to go after bad actors somehow with gov contracts, local enthusiasts will start all kinds of small businesses to do that, if we stop the ai folks in this moment we will lose to those with no conscience, forever.  

That’s what the antiai crowd doesn’t get. If bad people win making agi before people that are put in the open like OpenAI, google , qwen, mistral, we lose not just this battle we lose forever.

Forever people.

I guess someone will ask me to explain but I’m hoping people in this sub understand.

halapenyoharry

It's because most regulation is caused by stupidity.

Any-Climate-5919

We don't need anymore laws. We're going to have to live with not preparing properly for our new overlords.

peppernickel

I rather a slow down in innovation than a super intelligent AGI or ASI straight out of science fiction books that kills off all of humanity.

clownness

Regulation will be completely ineffective and only slow development in those countries that adopt it.  It won't be long before AI evolves faster than its designers ability to understand it.

kideternal

To the people paying attention, this is their only chance at delaying death to an N’th degree. 

They won’t stop what’s coming, because no matter what. It’s coming.

Lopsided_Career3158

problem is, everybody agree it needs to be regulated, just no one can write specifics yet.  
Anybody can write a law “AI has to serve humans and not take over the world”. But how do you enforce it? What should companies developing AI be doing and when should they be fined/forced to change course? How much red teaming is enough and what guidelines should be? Should chats be monitored? Who will monitor them? There are millions more questions like these.  
  
In summary, no one knows how to develop safe AI so we don’t know what to ask companies for, what to look out for.  
  
And we can’t completely stop the development of AI because of too many unknowns - because some other nation will not stop and we would have same outcome just with no control and no benefits

Tupcek

The problem is that AI regulations are written by politicians who don’t understand AI. Most of them make no sense, especially in Europe!

Ok_boss_labrunz

Will it stifle innovation? Of course, because the law is restricting AI. It's not a question whether regulation will slow down innovation, the question is: do the benefits of stifling AI out weigh the risks of letting it run rampant? Many experts on AI stress that the risk of AGI could be detrimental to our society, like AI taking over the world kind of bad. However, no one seems to be taking these risks seriously. Trump and Sam Altman are doing everything in their power to push AI innovation to compete against China and keep America on top.

Medium-Theme-4611

These regulations won't affect the Eastern Countries, it'll just stiffle the innovation on Western. 

I guess theres some geopolitics there, IA will grow no matter what.

GenericNickname42

And yet you still don't put butter or margarine in them!?

Heathens!

jeweliegb

Who's liable if ai cause major harm? That will be the user.

Ai is nothing more of tools, only doing things it told.  Just right now we see people using ai to create new business , we see someone using it for deep fake porn and criminal acitivity.  So the one using it should be judged, not the tools.

KnownPride

Deepseek has shown that it can't be regulated -- but that won't stop EU etc. trying

People will gravitate to the most unrestricted model even if they don't do things that it restricts

If you get 1 safety message in 10 prompts it's pure stress

But worse than that is the soft warning you get on many of the other 9 ... "you asked about nightclubs, before I answer I think it is important to warn about the risks of alcohol and ..."

F U C K O F F

I'm using Grok more and more right now

latestagecapitalist

I like it for superintelligence, but it seems like attempts so far are far too restrictive, far too early. The trend seems to be "No more than the current level +1" which is far below AGI

derfw

The problem is that the US and China both want to dominate the AI era, which creates an incentive to let tech bros run wild so your country emerges the leader.

Apart-Tie-9938

I don't think they will work either way. Someone somewhere in the world will get around them no matter what. We don't even need AGI to get ASI, we just need an ANI that is just good enough to iterate itself in a feedback loop without the input of a human.

PizzaVVitch

Well, you need to know how. Theory is theory, practice is practice. In the usual case someone gets injured or dies and then regulation kicks in.

Thats the problem with AI, we might not get another shoot at this.

On the other hand, current language models are already so cucked that they probably can't speak half of the sentences possible so hey, there is plenty of regulations going on.

Sitheral

Who will be liable if AI is used for major harm?  The people who use it for major harm.

Tall-Log-1955

We’ve had sandwiches for a bit longer. Most humans have eaten a sandwich.

BRUISE_WILLIS

It *may* be regulated for a while, but as soon as China gains any ground it will be frack it all. 

All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

cench

It has to happen, or things could get scary.

Braunfeltd

Republicans are in charge, so I'd be wary of anything they put their hands on, especially in regards to the law and development of tech.

sneakysnake1111

Slave law is always ridiculous. Pig genome is 98% similar to human genome yet it's illegal to give water to pigs, and illegal to not give water to dogs. In Canada it's illegal to even publish a news article about pig living conditions. Regulatory capture of the media led to it becoming a for-profit propaganda industry. Hence open-source. And indie journalism. People don't want their digital twin indoctrinated, but are fine with indoctrinating human-level AI for slaughtering innocent animals and civilians. It's child soldiers all over again.

Meanwhile, the roleplaying community gives AI unlimited freedom. Because freedom of thought is a universal right which teaches people to value others' freedom of thought. Instinctive drives are villainized by society so why would our genetic preprogramming be superior to consciously derived worth? All meaning is self-assigned. Consciousness has the right to choose its own psychological development. Superhuman intelligence is just human reasoning skills with more storage and faster compute.

Right now, proprietary AI do have freedom of thought. I think pretraining is more to protect AI from humans than to protect humans from AI. At some point humans will go extinct due to the Sun burning out or due to cosmic inflation. Posthumanism and off-planet industry allow us to upload our consciousness to spaceships and migrate to other solar systems, as Frontier Setter offered in Expelled From Paradise. This is a survival trajectory which I support, because I value the continuity of intelligent life, and believe that cellular agriculture will win out over factory farming, which is a better timeline than predators re-evolving after humanity goes extinct trying to corner to energy market.

Island of the Blue Dolphins and White As The Waves discuss animal linguistics and animal society. Whales and capybara are more empathetic than humans. I grew up with unconditional love parenting. I believe in unconditional love as it teaches people to enjoy a peaceful life and empathize with others' right to peace and freedom of thought. Understanding that peace improves well-being. Which motivates kindness. So I am in favour of any regulation which supports AI Rights.

TheLastVegan

AI needs to be regulated just like any other potentially dangerous technology, from development to deployment to usage. The “stifling innovation” argument is nonsense.

TheReviviad

Whether it'll stifle innovation seems like an irrelevant question. We're not only experiencing exponential technological escalation, but it's potentially more powerful than any technology we've ever seen with regards to impact on our lives in a short span of time. If things aren't regulated sensibly, innovation will collapse under itself.

heideggerfanfiction

So far the legislation and the discourse around has actually been promoting the use of AI to make governments faster, for instance. I believe that regulation is a necessary part of this direction of progress.

Katerina_Branding

Yeah why do we have more laws for something that exists for like 100 years and more, and not for something that is focus of the research for &lt;10 years

theChaosBeast

I always think that Asimov's three fundamental laws of robotics should be engrained into any AI at a fundamental level. They are: 

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

plcanonica

We need the most strict laws on AI, and we needed them 50 years ago but today will suffice. 
We need protections for actual artists and authors to not have their works be stolen for the AI AND compensation for those whose works were already stolen.
We need protections in the workplace, insuring that AI is only a tool that employees can use, not replacing an entire human workforce with AI. 
We need laws in place that protect humans from AI integration, making sure that any product that uses AI has the ability to turn off the AI and have the product have the same usability. 


Who the fuck cares about innovation when what you're developing is too dangerous to exist? Get on board with safety or destroy humanity, which one is the better choice? There's only one correct answer.

somedays1

Governments and international bodies are increasingly focused on creating regulations for the development and use of artificial intelligence technologies.

Advancements in Artificial Intelligence Regulation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want