Public sentiment reveals widespread anxiety and skepticism over the rapid advancement of AI technologies without sufficient regulation. Many individuals express fears related to job displacement, ethical implications, potential biases, and societal impacts of AI, advocating for immediate regulatory frameworks to mitigate risks. A significant number of commenters worry about the concentration of power and wealth among a few entities developing AI, highlighting the importance of ethical standards and collective ownership.

Corporations

Government

AI Developers

Regulations will only benefit the megacorps, while independent models will have troubles.

Daria_Uvarova

Regulating is not banning. Regulating cars means demanding seatbelts and emission limits. Regulation of generative AI might look like whatever but why should it categorically not be regulated.

jay-ff

Well copyright law really exists to help corporations, the idea behind it and how it’s actually used are kind of two different things.

Azimn

It doesn’t matter. The law will be written and passed according to what rich CEOs and their shareholders want, not what you or me want.

bugsy42

If a company is proven to have scraped non public imagery or data they should be liable in court for damages. 

But otherwise I don't think regulations around intellectual property are as important as regulation to slow the impact of AI on jobs. 

For example the gov could pass a tax of 25% or more on any position that a company replaced a human with AI. We'd have to have a whole infrastructure to evaluate that but I think it's essential if we don't want AI to eventually replace millions of jobs (especially entry level).

blyzo

Any end goal of restricting AI for ordinary people ends with massive corporations having total control over it. 

I don't really think the people pushing for those restrictions care.

Gleaming_Onyx

What’s the difference between CLIP and diffusion?

kjj34

If they regulate it, it'll be so that the average person can't use it.

Particular-Act-8911

In general, the idea that people should be able to determine if their IP is used as training data is perfectly fine.

Its not copyrighting thr style as output, its giving creators control over how their IP is used. Just because you make something available for humans to ingest shouldn't mean its fair game to be training data. 

And its not just creative works. Your voice and your image being used for training data shouldn't be allowed without permission.

Aggressive-Share-363

[deleted]

Let me pull out my tiny violin for the AI bros that might have to make the awful sacrifice of not shitting out slop based on stolen content.

headcodered

There's no such thing as 'style' for generative AI.

The style overall is defined by images you put into its dataset.

AI doesn't know about style; it doesn't know about anything. It just can't *know* something.

The main concern about copyright is not styles, but images used in the process of training, which were scraped from the internet without their original authors consent and then used to gain profit.

MarionberryMoney6011

"so right, mmkay guise! we do not want any regulations because thats .. baaaad mmkay?"

meanwhile, nobody has any protections to their identity.

Cute-Breadfruit3368

Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).


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

AutoModerator

One of the few actions Congress can take that would genuinely benefit the American people and earn bipartisan support is the regulation of AI in the job market. There should be limits on how many human jobs businesses are allowed to replace with AI. If a company intends to implement AI in a way that would eliminate existing positions, they should be legally required to notify affected employees and stay within a job displacement cap set by Congress, say 5% or 10% of the work force for example. This would ensure AI is used responsibly, without destabilizing the workforce or leaving people behind.

WolfPackLeader95

Insane so many commenters are saying no. lmao you guys genuinely dont understand just how much information is on the internet and how much can be sift through by a bot in just one day. Unregulation of ai for 10 YEARS is a monumentally stupid idea. We're already getting people in industries talking about getting some sort of id system so that you can log into online sites like ebay or amazon or even porn sites and this legislation is being done by dudes who still need to call "an expert" when they accidentatly put their phone into airplane mode. This is such a critical period in time because we are advancing and learning faster than ever yet all of the old guards are still acting like the best decision is made in a board room over handshakes. Its insane insane insane to see.

Robin_From_BatmanTAS

Congress is full of 80 year old dinosaurs that have no idea how a computer works.  They cannot regulate AI because they don't understand it.  This same thing happens when you have people in congress trying to regulate guns and they have no idea what they are regulating.

BlackmonsGhost

AI is plainly destructive to society and should be highly regulated and restricted. I was reading Neuromancer a few months ago and its depiction of an Interpol-like agency that exists to monitor, restrict, and prosecute excessive development of AI appeals to me.

SixFootTurkey_

its better to leave it unregulated for now as its a strategic arms race as far as tech goes. We need our geniuses to innovate fast and build the architecture.

We also need feedback from AI to see what regulations are good. Its just so new I dont think there is a good way to know what needs regulation yet.

I'm sure in 10 years there will be clear issues (privacy,IP,etc) and there will be a time for regulations

marketMAWNster

Youngrazzy

I know a lot of Republicans would disagree with me on this. But that AI provision is actually ONE of the actual good things about BBB. I may or may not agree with it being in the reconcilation bill, but it prevents hamstringing of technology progress by having constraints and inconsitent regulations at the state level with good but misguided intentions.

In a similar fashion, I also don't think we should regulate AI at the federal level either at least medium term - this competition is a techno-geopolitical one with China being the rival not a local/national one.

TimeToSellNVDA

It will probably be axed in reconciliation. I am in favor of more national level rules but only if we get bans like this.

The problem now is we have a national regulatory scheme for everything, and then 15-20 different model laws for that same industry across the states. This encourages a few monolithic companies with large legal teams to prevail, and competitors starting out to give up.

I think AI salesmen like Altman, Huang, and company are wrong. AI is not the next nuclear arms race or society ending with 90% unemployment. It is simply a tool. But OpenAI and Nvidia don’t get the same income if they pitch it as just another workflow aid as they do making it sound like they are about to have SkyNet to deploy on their foes.

In 2000 having a website meant your company got MASSIVE investment inflow. Then it turned out a website was a useful tool to reduce inefficiency and expand business. The investments collapsed. But that didn’t mean websites were a failure obviously. I see the same with “we have AI now” and stocks soaring.

mnshitlaw

There's always the risk with regulation that the regulations dictate the direction of the industry instead of demand for the product or service.   

A simple to understand example is the most popular rifle barrel length in the US is 16.1", and AR-15 pistols have become popular firearms.   Neither of those are a result of these being optimal products, instead they are a result of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and its definition of a "short barreled rifle".   

When regulation of an industry dictating its direction becomes a real problem is when we're competing with companies from other countries.   We can end up handicapping our AI development, where competing companies from other countries aren't subject to the same restraints.   We can end up in a situation where AI from another country takes a decisive lead as a result.

JoeCensored

Massive-Ad409

The one thing I would like is if AI is used that it is explicitly stated where and how in the process it is used. AI is basically a complicated else/if and I don't care much for it either way

Mr-Zarbear

Do you want Skynet? This is how you get Skynet

Tarontagosh

In that AGI and LLMs have military and intelligence applications … absolutely. It should be regulated Federally and not at the State level.

willfiredog

AI is moving so fast, government regulation will be WAY behind the tech. There is no point. 

And even if they do regulate, it will be infused with kickbacks and favoritism. This is not a technology that should be reserved for the few mega corporations that have paid lobbyists.  

Top_Sun_914

I think it's necessary, at least for the time being. I understand concerns about job loss. But AI also has very real national security implications, and with relations with China at all time lows, it's imperative the US continues to have the strongest AI systems. This would be unnecessarily hampered by state regulations (e.g. laws that state that companies can only train models of a certain size or with a certain amount of compute power within that state). If AI ends up posing very real risks, international agreements need to be reached, which only the federal government can act on.

Regarding states' view, I think the federal government and Congress should set up working groups so states can voice their concerns. But actions taken that restrict or regulate AI need to take into account national security.

PomegranateGold4702

No_Fox_2949

WinDoeLickr

Yes, it is a good idea. AI should not be regulated ever. Just think where we would be if the government had tried to regulate the internet. We wouldn't have half the innovation we have seen. The regulators are still working off a 20th century mindset.

StedeBonnet1

No, look how big our federal government currently regulates internet as if it's the 1990s. All it would do would be to handicap American competitiveness and innovation which is our strongest suit.

JudgeWhoOverrules

I'm pro Ai and want regulation. But here me out, its like this. I want a 50% cover our ass at all times deal. If man power goes down, we got robot/AI power. If the other side goes down? We got man power. Things slow but we continue on. Also there's an economic side to this. You never want to remove too many jobs from a market. I'm FOR AI, I also WANT big tech to focus on hiring artists to form their own look, style, and feel.

  
Look at D&amp;D of old, it had its styles. D&amp;D going forward? Going to be a shit show. Hasbro has stated in an earnings call it wants to hollow out that shit and slap any IP it can on it. "Want power rangers D&amp;D here you go!" Granted the fuck head in charge of HAsbro is someone who Firmly doesn't understand his products.

  
AI 100% has its place, and as a tool it SHOULD be used. Fuck it'll be a fantastic means to help us. We should ALSO keep an eye out for people who'll use it to absolutely fuck us over. Mark Zuckaberg wants to give you an "AI friend" Hard fucking no.

  
Its got its amazing potential. its also got the greedy fuckwads who'll happily try and use it to turn "Players into payers."

ObsidianTravelerr

I see a couple of responses to your question, but I don't see any answers.

"I want regulation."

\*What\* regulation? How? To what end?

agentictribune

Turbulent-Surprise-6

IMO any kind of regulation just lets whoever isn’t going to regulate “win”.

You’re assuming we all just want AI banned or something. For me, I could care less about the use of AI by individuals. My issue is with whether you can call what it makes art. 

I think the best way to deal with exploitative AI corporations is to make all AI public like the open web. You’ll never be able to get rid of bad actors but enforce laws against data theft and that’s about all I can think of.

thedarph

I would generally be considered "pro AI" and I want regulation. Most things should be regulated, and AI is no exception. 

The regulations I want tend to not be the same as what "anti-AI" people want, but they're regulations all the same. 

The advantage argument is not a good argument. It's an old argument that can be and has been applied to hundreds of laws over the centuries, and it's basically never reasonable.

Same thing for the enforcement argument ("it's hard to enforce"), and a bunch of others centered around the regulation part.

Regulation is fine. There's no issue with regulating things. The hard part is choosing the goal of the regulation - what values you want to advance.

KamikazeArchon

The only regulation I want is transparancy. 

It should 100% be required to disclose synthetic content when there is a monitary angle. Personal use? who gaf. 

Mostly, I want this for youtube so I can filter. Because that place is flodded with AI music now, some of it is honestly good, but 95% of it is garbage that I can't get away from. I swear if I have to listen to another autoqueud 1h boob video of elevator music I'm gonna vomit like im a gif from team america world police.

MacGregor1337

It's easy to make an AI. But it's hard to make the best or just extremely advanced AI. Or, simply, significantly contribute to this field. I believe that AI (and AGI as it future form) is a serious threat for humanity in many instances. Mismanagement, bad actors, AI takeover. It's all mostly out of question with homemade AIs. And that's why it still make sense to regulate AI and demand the safety consideration from top AI creators. But it ideally are required international cooperation.

Reynvald

the Luddites knew what to do with the looms. we should do the same thing to any robot we see marching through the streets the moment they start appearing.

Contract law. Full stop. Ai companies need to start blank and then seek artists for exclusive ai deals to add their work to the training model. Every generation would essentially be a licensing fee to the artist. Not only does this allow artists to be properly compensated, but would also allow for models to be different enough to make a more competitive market.

THE-BIG-OL-UNIT

Depends on what you want to achieve but I don’t see the regulation as particularly challenging. AI is extremely centralised and if you want you can be basically arbitrary destructive. Easy would be forbid to take money for AI services that are trained on copyrighted content without asking. 

And by the way AI is extremely expensive to make. Training a competitive foundation model is impossible if you’re not a big company and you can count the existing ones on one hand.

The only regulation I want to take place is to make it illegal to train a model on copyrighted content. Only on public domain.

Of course that can't be enforced for someone just making memes at home, but companies can be held accountable.

What_Dinosaur

There are lots of regulations I want. The EU already has many good ones.

1. You can't hand off any legal obligation you have to an AI and then say you are no longer to blame. Companies have tried to hand off legal support duties or even monetary duties to an AI and then claim they have no responsibility for the accuracy. Thankfully courts in Canada and other places hit companies fairly hard on that and it is illegal across the entire EU I think.
2. For any decisions involving people (hiring, firing, promotions, sentencing, etc.) you can use an AI to advise but it can NEVER make the decision and whoever makes the decision has to be able to explain the decision. You can't just say the magic black box told you.
3. I want them to license their training data. If the data is so valuable that it is critical for them to have it to make a PRODUCT that they SELL then it is valuable enough to pay the people you are getting that data from.
4. AI generated content should be marked as AI generated. 
5. It should be Illegal for companies to use AI that pretends to be a human. Like those dating apps that use AI that pretend to be women in order to get people to subscribe and think they are talking to a real person that goes nowhere.

Immudzen

I'm aware that what I'm about to say is a pipe dream, so you don't need to tell me.

Delete every model in existence and start over. Every model going forward must operate on an **opt-in** basis, not an opt out basis, and especially not a "Fuck you, we're not gonna bother asking" basis, the exception to all this being anything that is already in the public domain, of course.

Every opt-in participant gets paid, whether it's a one-time licensing fee to be able to use the data for a set period of time, or with regular recurring payments akin to residuals or some kind of profit sharing plan. You want to use our shit? Pay us. You want to use it in perpetuity? Give us passive income. Your toy doesn't function without our work. You don't get to steal it. They must also provide proof of deletion if the contractual period is over and the creator no longer wishes to be involved.

I still would struggle to call anyone that used AI an artist, but at the very least I could see myself being open to a *very* persuasive argument of its use as a tool in art if the creators that make the models function are getting credited and paid and the one utilizing it is actually bringing something to the table and not just clicking "Go."

SoftlockPuzzleBox

My bottom line is that AI generated content should be marked as such, companies should give users a very clear option to "opt out" of having their content used to train AI, and AI should ASSIST human workers, not REPLACE human workers

The idea being to make clear what is or isn't AI for those who do not like it

Asking clearly for consent before using user data to train AI, and respecting it, preferably giving the user the option to change their answer (content already created using user data can't be removed, but their data is deleted off the data base used for the training)

Preferably (as unlikely as this may be to come true) to give users the option to demand AI generated content created without their consent be deleted

But finally, some type of regulation to ensure that AI is used to boost a company's productivity without rising unemployment.

Evil-Paladin

I'd personally rather ban it. Partly cause it's tricky to regulate. I know this sounds very antagonistic, but Ai is kinda build on the idea of tricking people. So as it advances, it would just circumnavigate any and all regulations.

Nopfen

Maybe some kind of Spotify like of deal. Prompts that was used from your art is used you get a tiny amount of credit. Im sure the engineers can find a way to track what  images is used when generating an ai image

Aligyon

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

just look at history. corporation push for deregulation until people start getting hurt (self driving cars blowing up) then naturally people push for regulation. cyclical

zooper2312

As a European; The EU already said 'whoa here' when it came to AI, and they're working on legislation. So can confirm it's possible if you just riot hard enough. 😄

I mean, it's a small win, and we're DEFINITELY not there yet, since my country still ain't got proper legislation (long story short; the political system in my neck of the woods generally is SLOW, so it's gonna be a long wait for sure. But I always was pro-EU because of the open borders and for easier trade, and I do hope that my country gets local legislation too on that one). But a small win is still a win on that one, lol.

BankTypical

In the US? Not a chance, it’s only going to get worse.

There will be regulation that is self-serving to the people in power. It will become hard to repeal those, because it already exists as law.

TheDeepOnesDeepFake

There is growing debate around the need for stricter regulations on artificial intelligence technologies and their potential impact on jobs, privacy, and security.

Concerns Over AI Regulation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want