Steve Smith mentioned the Senate hearing about regulating LLMs. During the hearing someone mentioned (sort of in passing) that it would make sense to release such systems in stages: first to a small group of people, then to a larger group, etc. That reminded me of the standard approach to drug trials. Perhaps something like that could be implemented/required.
-- Russ Abbott Professor Emeritus, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:33 AM Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > ... > > I am a couple of hours behind on the live feed Senate hearing on AI > <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-of-ai-rules-for-artificial-intelligence> > listening in fits and starts between other things: > > 1. I was definitely impressed with Altman (OpenAI), Montgomery (IBM) > and Marcus' (NYU) thoughtful and extrapolative responses rather than > perhaps the more usual defensive/deflective/adversarial style that these > hearings often have... I don't know who chose this particular lineup but > I thought both Montgomery and Marcus made a good complement to Altman. If > Google and Microsoft and ??? had been there it might have reflected more > "competitive" or "showy" answers? > 2. I was impressed with the Senators (compared to my fairly low > expectations). Even Kennedy and Hawley managed not to do their usual > grandstanding and and snide sniping. Altman handed Hawley's question "why > don't we just let people sue you?" (as a mode of regulation/oversight) back > to him quite deftly (in the style of "ass with both hands") by responding > simply "I know of no reason people CAN'T sue us today if we cause harm". > Marcus chipped in pretty well outlining how the current laws that *might* > apply are not well suited for many reasons. > 3. I felt that all three witnesses walked the fine line on the > question of a "moratoriam" fairly deftly, acknowledging that they endorse > the spirit of not running headlong and thoughtlessly into the future but at > the same time there is no obvious practical way to implement and enforce > this, but that they are all enforcing their own limits on how fast (and > thoughtlessly?) they might roll out development to the public... > 4. In closing Blumenthal suggested having ChatGPT rewrite the lyrics > to "Don't Stop" (thinking about tomorrow (McVie-Fleetwood Mac) which I took > to heart. I was not impressed with it's results and won't burden the list > with it. I'm guessing Blumenthal did *not* actually do that but like > Quixote, simply saw the windmill and thought it might be a giant? > > ... >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
