This EO is outside the scope of the Defense Production Act.
It is, in effect, legal fan fiction issued by the President in which he argues that Congress hid a mountain underneath the molehill of this statute. It is a "what if" comic book story that pretends to powers that this branch just does not have. Evaluating it on policy grounds does not really make that much sense because of this because you would not fight it on policy grounds but on fundamental legal grounds. It does not matter if it was the best policy in the world; if you allow the president to do something like this you might as well dispense with all pretenses and grind Congress into soylent.
This is not uncommon for this administration in which their "brilliant" plans are just to do illegal things and then wait to be sued for it. The other issue is that it brings in so many different agencies and commands them to do things under the purported authority of the DPA. While the DPA does provide a lot of broad authority for various agencies to do things, this EO micromanages agencies within a broad scope that is just beyond the authority delegated by the DPA. There is simply no intelligible limiting principle to this interpretation. I understand that Google etc. want to guarantee that they will stay profitable because they are the only ones who could afford this type of regulation, but if they want to do that, they will have to shell out bigger bribes to Congress to make it possible.
Trump also believed that the DPA was a magic wand that empowered the president to do basically anything during c*vid. But if you read it, the scope is much more constrained than that.
I’m afraid your cynicism is well placed. When in conversation with others about the latest appalling behavior of humans I ask why are you surprised, look at our track record over history. Same can be said of regulatory proliferation, look at the track record - regulations never decrease, only increase.
"This is not a document about innovation. It is about stifling innovation."
Um, duh! This is using 'innovation' as an positive valence emotional applause-lights word intended to shut off thinking. Obviously there are good and bad 'innovations'! I guess when the specific thing we are worried about is the potential for catastrophically bad innovations we still shouldn't try to monitor for and prevent them because bad ones can't exist because hearing the word 'innovation' gives us such fentanyl-like ennervating bliss.
People, we just survived four years of a mild catastrophe which was just a few more iterations of gain of function 'innovation' from being a global black death! Correctly spotting the real danger, we did try to regulate it, evil people abused the weakness of those regulations to fund it anyway, and thank God we were lucky enough for those innovations to break out of the lab when they were only strong enough to kill millions instead of billions.
I think the owners of an AI system should be accountable for harms the system causes. Sort of how major media companies are responsible for the lies and defamation and misinformation they publish.
Oh wait. I guess that analogy doesn't work.
I think the right answer is that any content produced by an AI system be labeled as such. And maybe we can get journalism to return to the tradition of providing citations for all claims. Content produced by an AI system would include a citation of the date and prompt used to produce the AI generated response. The AI system itself would catalog all sources of information used to build its model.
This EO is outside the scope of the Defense Production Act.
It is, in effect, legal fan fiction issued by the President in which he argues that Congress hid a mountain underneath the molehill of this statute. It is a "what if" comic book story that pretends to powers that this branch just does not have. Evaluating it on policy grounds does not really make that much sense because of this because you would not fight it on policy grounds but on fundamental legal grounds. It does not matter if it was the best policy in the world; if you allow the president to do something like this you might as well dispense with all pretenses and grind Congress into soylent.
This is not uncommon for this administration in which their "brilliant" plans are just to do illegal things and then wait to be sued for it. The other issue is that it brings in so many different agencies and commands them to do things under the purported authority of the DPA. While the DPA does provide a lot of broad authority for various agencies to do things, this EO micromanages agencies within a broad scope that is just beyond the authority delegated by the DPA. There is simply no intelligible limiting principle to this interpretation. I understand that Google etc. want to guarantee that they will stay profitable because they are the only ones who could afford this type of regulation, but if they want to do that, they will have to shell out bigger bribes to Congress to make it possible.
Trump also believed that the DPA was a magic wand that empowered the president to do basically anything during c*vid. But if you read it, the scope is much more constrained than that.
The illusion that we still live in a system characterized by "the rule of law" is the legal fan fiction.
I’m afraid your cynicism is well placed. When in conversation with others about the latest appalling behavior of humans I ask why are you surprised, look at our track record over history. Same can be said of regulatory proliferation, look at the track record - regulations never decrease, only increase.
"This is not a document about innovation. It is about stifling innovation."
Um, duh! This is using 'innovation' as an positive valence emotional applause-lights word intended to shut off thinking. Obviously there are good and bad 'innovations'! I guess when the specific thing we are worried about is the potential for catastrophically bad innovations we still shouldn't try to monitor for and prevent them because bad ones can't exist because hearing the word 'innovation' gives us such fentanyl-like ennervating bliss.
People, we just survived four years of a mild catastrophe which was just a few more iterations of gain of function 'innovation' from being a global black death! Correctly spotting the real danger, we did try to regulate it, evil people abused the weakness of those regulations to fund it anyway, and thank God we were lucky enough for those innovations to break out of the lab when they were only strong enough to kill millions instead of billions.
Yes, stifling innovation is the point! DUH!
I think the owners of an AI system should be accountable for harms the system causes. Sort of how major media companies are responsible for the lies and defamation and misinformation they publish.
Oh wait. I guess that analogy doesn't work.
I think the right answer is that any content produced by an AI system be labeled as such. And maybe we can get journalism to return to the tradition of providing citations for all claims. Content produced by an AI system would include a citation of the date and prompt used to produce the AI generated response. The AI system itself would catalog all sources of information used to build its model.