aifaq.wtf

Governments buy into hype same as everyone else.

ChatGPT can reveal training data if asked to do specific dumb things, so now it's against the rules to do specific dumb things.

I want to reference rules lawyering even though it's absolutely not rules lawyering. But lawyering through rules, certainly.

A list of recommendations from the Ada Lovelace Institute on regulating AI in the UK.

The actual regulation suggestions are here, but god help you if you'd like to read them. A large chunk of the page is taken up by overlays, the typography makes it hard to know what section you're in, you can't (easily) hyperlink to specific headers, and there's no PDF version.

Quick link to their recommendations

This helped me get third place in trivia this weekend. Everyone else guessed Jimmy Kimmel, for some reason?

If you want to find out whether you're a hapless victim, visit WaPo's Inside the secret list of websites that make AI like ChatGPT sound smart. I'm apparently the source of about 0.0000313% of the tokens! Where's my check?

I love fast.ai but this is an incredibly silly argument against regulation.

But if AI turns out to be powerful, the proposal [for regulation] may actually make things worse, by creating a power imbalance so severe that it leads to the destruction of society.

My ears cannot possibly perk up any higher. So severe it leads to the destruction of society? Thanks for the warning, bub. It then goes on to talk about all of the underhanded elements of society that develop their own evil AI models while we sit around lamely hamstrung by things like "laws" and "ethics."

But those with full access to AI models have enormous advantages over those limited to “safe” interfaces.

And those needing full access can simply train their own models from scratch, or exfiltrate existing ones through blackmail, bribery, or theft.

"If we regulate AI only the bad guys will have AI," never heard anything like that before.

Interesting concept?