Search results

And there have been cases in which that sort of one-shot blurb has been ruled insufficient warning. I recall an incident that resulted in a particular motorsports shop ending their 20+ year long practice of renting out a major Canadian racetrack, the day prior to the Nationals, for a track day...

It's banning an outboard motor from being used and a kitchen mixer, not outright banning of the tool. Again, regulating use. There are actual legal and medical AIs in development. Limiting a general purpose AI from doing specialized tasks wouldn't be that onerous a regulation.

Then I guess the question would be is in Nihilism, or Narcissism?

And I would say a little bottom text doesn't absolve the creator of improper use. There would likely need to be a click-through portal stating limitations. But that's the stuff of prolonged legal wrangling, not the musings of some barely legally literate guy like me.

And isn't that the point? It's a tool. You treat it like other tools. We have examples of how you handle tools, including liability of the manufacturer.

I would call AI a dangerous technology, on several fronts. Even tools that only cause harm when used improperly have regulations and laws that control them, their manufacture, and use. If you insist on calling AI a "tool", then the analogy fits.

We make laws that limit the way that tools can be produced all the time. Take a look at table saws, for example, and proposed legislation regarding SawStop style technology. When something is dangerous we will frequently either mandate how it must be used, or change how it must be made in order...

Narrated by that SDET friend I mentioned, previously.

I wonder what the result would be from ChatGPT-Law.

There's a very real reason why the phrase "test it in production" is an ongoing joke, in IT circles.

As an aside, I have a friend who used to be a SDET (Software Development Engineer in Test) for various large software companies, that you definitely would have heard of. Companies have been laying off their SDETs over the last 5 years and, instead, having developers test and certify their own...

We make sure that such things are safe, to the point that they frequently lag well behind cutting edge tech, and with reason (as you say). There's a whole genre of fiction about what happens when untested medical tech is prematurely put into use.

Humans certainly seem to be built to want that which works to our ultimate detriment.

Quite. I'm getting a lot of, "It's all burning down anyway so let's just set off a nuke!" energy in this thread.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Mitigation still means that less needs to be done, in order to alter course.

Because of the current growth in scale, we'll not be able to mitigate damage. Keeping things to a lesser scale, with known beneficial applications, would result in something that we might be able to mitigate, by reducing damage caused by other sources. For example moving to electric or hydrogen...

True. Then again there are electronics formulas that need to be remembered, in order to work through designs and problems. If (generic) you don't get E=IR and P=EI, and fully understand it, then just give up.

Or it's also a matter of scale. Massive use of AI becomes a huge issue given that the datacentres are growing to the point of needing their own powerplants, and submerged cold water cooling rigs. AI doesn't need to be ubiquitous in order to have a positive impact in areas where it has clearly...

Isn't it though? To me, the rephrasing doesn't invalidate the point.

Everyone learns differently. For me, it was better to learn and remember first principles of electronic engineering. Cramming for an exam was a useless endeavour, if I didn't take the basics on-board during the semester. In fact doing so mean that cramming was frequently counter productive. I...