Technology

59361 readers

7028 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

361

Outcry from big AI firms over California AI “kill switch” bill (arstechnica.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/technology

114 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 157 points 5 months ago (4 children)

If companies are crying about it then it's probably a great thing for consumers.

Eat billionaires.

[–] General_Effort 40 points 5 months ago

The California bill was co-sponsored by the Center for AI Safety (CAIS), a San Francisco-based non-profit run by computer scientist Dan Hendrycks, who is the safety adviser to Musk’s AI start-up, xAI. CAIS has close ties to the effective altruism movement, which was made famous by jailed cryptocurrency executive Sam Bankman-Fried.

Ahh, yes. Elon Musk, paragon of consumer protection. Let's just trust his safety guy.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Companies cry the same way about the bills to ban end to end encryption, and they're still bad for consumers too

[–] Cryophilia 5 points 5 months ago

Fair point

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

It's designed to give the big players a monopoly, seems bad for the majority of us

[+] Womble -50 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So if smaller companies are crying about huge companies using reglation they have lobbied for (as in this case through a lobbying oranisation set up with "effective altruism" money) being used prevent them from being challenged: should we still assume its great?

[–] [email protected] 68 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Rewind all the stupid assumptions you're making and you basically have no comment left.

[–] glimse 11 points 5 months ago

Bravo on the concise take down. What a great way to put that

[–] Womble 5 points 5 months ago

Which assumption? It's a fact that this was co-sponsored by the CAIS, who have ties to effective altruism and Musk, and it is a fact that smaller startups and open source groups are complaining that this will hand an AI oligopoly to huge tech firms.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

My current day is only just starting, so I'll modify the standard quote a bit to ensure it encompasses enough things to be meaningful; this is the dumbest thing I've read all yesterday.