There is a massive difference between AI tech in the 70s and today. The scale we’re able to achieve is orders of magnitude beyond what was dreamed of. These modern issues were conceived as taking much longer to arrive and giving the legal system more time to catch up. Our legal system can force a common baseline of behavior on our new technology and that will be necessary to have a healthy balance of power.
There is a massive difference between AI tech in the 70s and today.
Not really. We’ve learned a few tricks along the way, but the fundamentals of neural networks have not changed at all. The most significant progress AI has made is in seeing compute become orders of magnitude faster. Which we knew, with reasonable confidence, was going to happen. Moore’s Law and all that.
The scale we’re able to achieve is orders of magnitude beyond what was dreamed of.
While I disagree, the scale is irrelevant. The slow systems in the 1970s were maybe only ingesting one book rather than millions of books, but legally there is no difference between one book and millions of books. If we are to believe that there is no legal right for a machine to read a book, then reading just one book is in violation of that.
our new technology
What new technology? The Attention is All You Need paper, which gave rise to LLMs, showed a way to train neural networks faster, but it is not the speed at which machines can read books that is in question. Nobody has suggested that the legal contention is in traffic law, with computers breaking speed limits.
We’ve been doing this for decades upon decades upon decades. Incremental improvements in doing it faster changes the legal state not. To pretend that suddenly the world was flipped upside down is ridiculously disingenuous.
There is a massive difference between AI tech in the 70s and today. The scale we’re able to achieve is orders of magnitude beyond what was dreamed of. These modern issues were conceived as taking much longer to arrive and giving the legal system more time to catch up. Our legal system can force a common baseline of behavior on our new technology and that will be necessary to have a healthy balance of power.
Not really. We’ve learned a few tricks along the way, but the fundamentals of neural networks have not changed at all. The most significant progress AI has made is in seeing compute become orders of magnitude faster. Which we knew, with reasonable confidence, was going to happen. Moore’s Law and all that.
While I disagree, the scale is irrelevant. The slow systems in the 1970s were maybe only ingesting one book rather than millions of books, but legally there is no difference between one book and millions of books. If we are to believe that there is no legal right for a machine to read a book, then reading just one book is in violation of that.
What new technology? The Attention is All You Need paper, which gave rise to LLMs, showed a way to train neural networks faster, but it is not the speed at which machines can read books that is in question. Nobody has suggested that the legal contention is in traffic law, with computers breaking speed limits.
We’ve been doing this for decades upon decades upon decades. Incremental improvements in doing it faster changes the legal state not. To pretend that suddenly the world was flipped upside down is ridiculously disingenuous.