That one was heavy reading! I'm pretty sparse in terms of general knowledge of AI, so it was a lot to process!
I fully agree with your points regarding treatment of different levels of AI firms. It's very similar to how a small abattoir is expected to follow the same procedures as the meat processing industry; a small processor is unable to absorb the regulation costs like Cargill is.
Muse follows the money and the calendar. An established laboratory can retain specialists and absorb delays; a challenger may exhaust its financing while waiting for an assessment. That is the competitive imbalance his essay describes. He also acknowledges the opposite danger: developers shopping for an evaluator willing to overlook problems. His proposed safeguards include disclosing conflicts, publishing waiting times, providing written reasons for rejection, and testing assessor performance. He examines both sides of the assessment business: who can afford access and whether the resulting judgment deserves confidence. The central concern is how technical review translates into commercial power.
I thought it was interesting that Meta came out after the settlement of 18 billion to say that all social media platforms should adopt the same rules that Meta is now implementing to protect teens. Of course they would say that because users will fluidly cross over to other platforms. This is a self regulating environment to a certain level. It is nearly impossible to avoid all the risks, but we can place boundaries to the point where Ai is not the final decision maker in any case where we cannot stop or reverse an action. If doctors can use Ai safely in surgical procedures, surely we can set boundaries that allow growth and protect competition which is of utmost value.
That one was heavy reading! I'm pretty sparse in terms of general knowledge of AI, so it was a lot to process!
I fully agree with your points regarding treatment of different levels of AI firms. It's very similar to how a small abattoir is expected to follow the same procedures as the meat processing industry; a small processor is unable to absorb the regulation costs like Cargill is.
🎯🎯🎯
Muse follows the money and the calendar. An established laboratory can retain specialists and absorb delays; a challenger may exhaust its financing while waiting for an assessment. That is the competitive imbalance his essay describes. He also acknowledges the opposite danger: developers shopping for an evaluator willing to overlook problems. His proposed safeguards include disclosing conflicts, publishing waiting times, providing written reasons for rejection, and testing assessor performance. He examines both sides of the assessment business: who can afford access and whether the resulting judgment deserves confidence. The central concern is how technical review translates into commercial power.
And just who or what mechanism is responsible for oversight. That’s the rub.
I thought it was interesting that Meta came out after the settlement of 18 billion to say that all social media platforms should adopt the same rules that Meta is now implementing to protect teens. Of course they would say that because users will fluidly cross over to other platforms. This is a self regulating environment to a certain level. It is nearly impossible to avoid all the risks, but we can place boundaries to the point where Ai is not the final decision maker in any case where we cannot stop or reverse an action. If doctors can use Ai safely in surgical procedures, surely we can set boundaries that allow growth and protect competition which is of utmost value.
all in favor of banning mathematics, raise your hand.
😂