Among civilians, AI is more like we are in the 1930s with airplane clubs--advancing technology out of the love of the idea. Ethical questions are important, but the harms do not seem significant enough to regulate before experimenting.
Among the military, it's more like we are in the 1950s with the US/USSR nuclear arms race. The (real or perceived) need to drive AI technology without regard to ethics whatsoever comes from an analysis of the opponent which says they are not regarding ethics.
There are no laws for civilians regarding AI. There are no treaties for countries regarding AI. And there won't be until after someone gets hurt.
This is the normal model for laws.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/5/21050508/us-export-ban-ai-...
[2]: https://www.wired.com/story/europes-proposed-limits-ai-globa...
[3]: https://www.wired.com/story/portlands-face-recognition-ban-t...
[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/facial-recognition-ban...
When you say AI, it sounds like you are mostly referring to automated data collection. This has one set of concerns.
AI is also commonly used to mean algorithmic decision making. Again, a different set of concerns. The mechanism behind the decision is not really important, but people have concerns about e.g. fairness of automatically deciding based on a set of factors or on past trends. There are also concerns about the reliability of opaque AI models, because stakeholders dont understand how they work.
There is also AI as sold by consulting firms which is usually just some variation on a BI dashboard, dressed up in modern lingo.
And then I suppose there are some future concerns about actual AGI, that are more about having created some sentient thing, but those are more philosophical at this point.
Normally I don't like getting hung up on terminology, but with AI, there are so many different meanings that it is best to use some other term, especially when we talk about what is regulated. It would be silly e.g. to be perceived as regulating linear regression when you are concerned about data collection.
How would we know? We can't even explain our own sentience.
However, with respect to forbidding AI - the first thing this comment calls to mind is the Butlerian Jihad [1]. I am not optimistic.
It is a dream to me to believe that AI use could be restricted by national laws, although the EU is trying. Your subcontractor in Country X is going to receive the clickstream and do "something" for you. I am having a hard time seeing how "train AI with the clickstream" is going to be forbidden (or that such use could ever be _proven_).
I think the discussion has to be more fundamental than this. Even on HN I don't see a lot of coherent alternative suggestions.
The genie is out of the bottle.
Now what could we actually do about it, in a realistic productive way?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(franchise)#The_Butlerian...
1) Mass tracking and collection of personal data.
2) AI being used to make important decisions that affect people's lives.
3) Autonomous weapons. (This is a subcategory of 2, technically, but has its own unique set of problems.)
You mean like a FISA court but for AI use? Look at how even FISA courts turned/are turning out. In a perfect world I would like to see the 3 laws of robotics to take precedent.
I overheard someone at DefCon one year say that it isn't companies we should be afraid of but the guy that is on his 5th Red Bull of the night and is about to flick the switch to on.
1. There is already a (terrible) precedent for making math illegal with encryption
2. What people really want to regulate is the use, and (my observation / paraphrase) it's really about how data is collected and aggregated, and what kind of data is used as the basis for automated decisions. The challenge is that this all gets bundled as "AI" and pushed by people that don't understand the underlying science, so there is a real danger I believe of accidentally outlawing some math, simply due to ignorance.
I think part of the solution is calling out nontechnical "AI ethics/fairness/bias/trust etc" people that don't know what they are talking about but are pushing policy in response to their own misunderstanding of what modern "AI" is.
Incorrect. There was AI before statistical machine learning.
> Are we really going to make [AI] illegal?
No. The question above is about the uses of AI, not the least of which includes protected rights at a national level as well as international treaties regarding warfare and human rights.
I assume it's now legal to collect whatever data you like, as much of it as you wish, and even if it leaks online (as the recent FB data breach did), you're "a-okay". Cool, so now I know PII is a fair game to collect, sell, profile, and use as I please, any actual real-world human impact from this (deaths, scams, anything in between) is not my problem. I know for a fact I won't be prosecuted, fined or challenged in any way (provided I'm Mark Zuckerberg and appease my overlords), anyone insignificant will get the book thrown at them as is typical.
We seem to have a real issue with getting to grips with this new technology and how it can easily be used in both good ways to enhance industries but also work against humans (racial bias/profiling for example).
I honestly am amazed "AI" is even legal today, it should be explicitly banned entirely until we decide on "ground rules" and slowly but surely open it up. Any usage of ANYTHING considered "AI" should go before a court - an "AI supreme court" if you will, and a license issued for exclusively that usage (and it would be monitored and its inputs/outputs tested, all software code/algorithms would be available to the court for review which would consist of highly renowned developers and those who understand how the tech works).
But that's clearly not how America works - even if there's real human harm and suffering, the rules/laws only come later, after the bloodshed, far too late. It'll sadly be the same here.