Bernie Sanders proposes 20 year prison sentence for AI devs who plow ahead with Artificial Superintelligence plans - penalty on par with illegally developing rogue nuclear weapons

[u/ArgentineBeauty]

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/sanders-proposes-20-year-prison-sentence-for-ai-devs-who-plow-ahead-with-artificial-superintelligence-plans-penalty-on-par-with-illegally-developing-rogue-nuclear-weapons

[u/srout_fed]

But that's the thing... it's not illegal, yet.

Unless it becomes illegal, it's a stupid idea to pass the burden onto the employees, in place of the employers.

...and even if it becomes illegal, if you leave it to the devs to face the consequence, then they will simply become the scapegoats.

[u/dBlock845 → u/srout_fed]

Some of the shit a few of these companies have been doing is definitely illegal under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

[u/collabskus → u/dBlock845]

The actual wording of the CFAA is apparently so broad and ridiculous that you could argue a lot of the things we do everyday are federal crimes.

Personally I think we should repeal and not replace the CFAA. Not modify, full on repeal it. Laws should not be as expansive as the CFAA that the courts have to step in to protect us from LinkedIn.

[u/Wonder_bread317 → u/[deleted]]

why not make more swamps ? Swamps for everyone!!!! 5k for your own swamp!

[u/Mikeavelli → u/Wonder_bread317]

Wetlands disappearance is a serious environmental issue

[u/collabskus → u/[deleted]]

I don't even remember why we hated crocs. It is fine. They are comfortable. They are practical. They are good enough. 

[u/uzlonewolf → u/collabskus]

Three Felonies a Day.

[u/Actual__Wizard → u/dBlock845]

Yeah there's a law regarding identities that they may be violating as well, because their agents create fake accounts.

[u/EveryNameIWantIsGone → u/srout_fed]

Obviously it’s not illegal yet. The article is about a proposed law.

[u/nybble41 → u/EveryNameIWantIsGone]

Unless they're proposing a constitutional amendment, it still wouldn't be illegal. AI research is speech.

[u/Montgomery000 → u/nybble41]

You can curtail speech if it is dangerous enough. For example, you can't make a detailed Youtube tutorial on how to produce a nuclear weapon, even though it's speech.

[u/Dracomortua → u/Montgomery000]

You were downvoted (???).

• gave you upvote. TiL, this is very true.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_Inc.

Sorry Reddit, some days i love you but today would you kindly fuck right off. This is really interesting, ethics wise. Upvote this, despite your life-problems.

[u/divDevGuy → u/Montgomery000]

Today...on How It's Made:

• Enriching weapons grade uranium...
• Building a thermonuclear warhead...
• And assembling the warhead delivery vehicle.

Uranium. It powers cities, propels submarines, and occasionally keeps international inspectors up at 3:00 AM. But turning raw earth into weapons-grade fuel takes precision, patience, and just the right touch.

​You could say the whole process is pretty rad though if things go wrong, the results are positively critical.

​It all starts deep underground, where miners extract natural uranium ore...

[u/nybble41 → u/Montgomery000]

No, not even "dangerous" information is outside the scope of the freedom of speech. YouTube would probably pull the video as a violation of their ToS; they aren't obligated to host it and it doesn't suit their public image. That has nothing to do with the legality of sharing it, though. There is quite a bit of information available on any number of potentially dangerous subjects, up to and including weapons systems, and all of it falls well within the domain of protected speech, right up to the point where someone actually puts it into practice. (At which point the 2nd Amendment comes into play.)

[u/Bencetown → u/nybble41]

Is development of nuclear weapons "speech" too?

[u/nybble41 → u/Bencetown]

Certainly the research would be. Actually building one goes beyond speech but there's no inherent reason for it to be illegal provided there are proper safeguards against accidents and no intent to use it against anyone. (Yes, they do have other uses besides warfare. Project Orion would be one long-standing example—leveraging the explosions for spacecraft propulsion. Or large mining projects, e.g. asteroid mining.)

Others having the ability to harm you if they chose to is not the same as being threatened. Feeling insecure is not a sufficient justification on its own for use of force.

[u/Pygmy_Nuthatch → u/srout_fed]

Nor will it become illegal. This is vibes-only governance from the world's loudest member of the Silent Generation.

[u/barnopss → u/srout_fed]

Similar to arresting drug users vs sellers.