Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CyberShad0wz t1_itlxjdo wrote

More shit. Day in and day out.

66

giabollc t1_itmx8tt wrote

How dare he! Who does he think he is, a SENATOR?!?

30

theblobbbb t1_itn8ens wrote

Before you jump at this headline you should listen to him speak. He was on Sam Harris’s podcast and is incredibly articulate around AI and risk. He is an expert in this field and a smart guy, who would you rather sitting in the room making up laws this guy or some other ignorant senator who can barely think their way out of high school.

17

Zeppo_Ennui t1_itnhfbm wrote

Was there no other smart, articulate guy available that also had morals?

21

EmbarrassedHelp t1_itob4ht wrote

Its politics, so I'm going to say probably no. Especially with that idiot Congresswoman Anna Eshoo attacking open source AI research, and yet somehow she on the congressional AI group.

11

EffectiveEconomics t1_itnpjim wrote

Smart and articulate, paired with cunning and a conflict of interest is not a good thing. It leads to public policy that is even harder to correct.

16

theblobbbb t1_itoecdt wrote

Absolutely, is that the case in this instance?

3

Seeker_Of_Knowledge- t1_itoryiv wrote

100%. The most absurd fact in our system is that people of people don't require any degree or even high school diploma. Like WTF.

2

Rogaar t1_ito6pyn wrote

What do you expect when you have unregulated market in a country where bribing a politician is legal by renaming it as a "donation".

14

nur5e t1_itps1pm wrote

He’s not a politician. Stop pushing fake news.

−9

Rogaar t1_its9hmb wrote

Where did I make the claim he was a politician? Perhaps you should take off your maga hat and spend some time learning to read.

3

BraveAbbreviations69 t1_itmwnjr wrote

No greed to see here. SMH

7

JesusLiberty t1_itnxd5g wrote

Would you rather someone completely uneducated on AI make decisions about AI?

−2

EmbarrassedHelp t1_itobof4 wrote

Congress already has completely uneducated people like Anna Eshoo leading the charge on terrible ideas about AI. So, clearly he and rational experts have less control than most people thing.

5

WhatTheZuck420 t1_itscs9l wrote

so don't elect morons. but don't encourage non-elected people to make decisions about your life.

1

EmbarrassedHelp t1_itseet5 wrote

> so don't elect morons.

If it only it were that simple and easy lol

0

drunkenvalley t1_itp5ubt wrote

Are you implying the only people who are educated on AI are financially compromised?

3

LifeWithMike t1_itomac4 wrote

Decent point … Alexandria Outright Crazy (AOC) definitely shouldn’t be writing legislation on Solar, Wind or green energy having only been a bartender as previous work experience.

−11

LifeWithMike t1_itxlssq wrote

Wow… 10 down votes since yesterday? Will these come out and explain how they think AOC is qualified to write legislation for green energy and where we spend trillions of dollars? I must have missed some items on her resume.

0

RetiredAerospaceVP t1_itmx3pa wrote

Straight out of the Robber Baron playbook. Still works after 100 years

6

Ok-Relationship771 t1_itngvyk wrote

So this is a good thing…?

2

EmbarrassedHelp t1_itoavf1 wrote

I'm wonder what sort of legislation and regulation he helped pass? I imagine that most large industries have people like that in governments.

2

WhatTheZuck420 t1_itnntjj wrote

Schmidt is shit. Keeps backdooring his ass into government, but doesn't have the cajones to actually run for public office. Prefers the dark alley approach. He should go to his other country.

1

nur5e t1_itps8gg wrote

The amount he owned is public record, and he properly disclosed it. Notice how none of the media is discussing the amount so it must be tiny and nontrivial.

1

MsFrecklesSpots t1_itq6qaz wrote

These capitalist are expert at writing the rules in their favor and then telling us it is ultimately for own GOOD. Ha ha ha ha

1

Hopeful-Sir-2018 t1_itqyigv wrote

I've been developing a crazy idea (not as in crazy good just... not well thought out crazy and a bit out there). When things like this occur - the people involved serve 1 day / 24 hours in jail. Not enough to cost them much, not enough to actively do much of anything. Hear me out though.

Failure to disclose things while attempting to make a significant impact on law's being made? 24 hours in jail.

Company broke the laws and normally would "just" get a fine? 24 hours in jail. Fines slightly reduced.

The goal here is the C-levels of companies that pull in more than 1 million profit (not income, profit) need to suffer a small bit. If it's an honest mistake 24 hours isn't going to hurt anyone or anything at that level. However.. if it's recurring... they'll spend more than a handful of days in jail every year. On public record.

You see my thoughts are: I want a person to be held accountable. I want the punishment to be insignificant enough that a few mistakes aren't life shattering in any meaningful way but recurring problems becoming highly inconvenient. If the CEO spends 1/5 of their year in jail.. all of a sudden they can't 'run' the company properly.

Oh c-levels don't live in that country? Ok. Company, and anything other company that company owns, is shut down in that country for 24 hours if they fail to comply with 24 hours in jail. 24 hours will suck but it won't destroy companies of that size.

If it's been decided that they specifically timed this so their 24 hours is at a 'better' time, then they spend 48 hours for manipulation and intent. Enough to lose a weekend.

If it's a Congress Critter then they lose all privileges and luxuriates afforded to them during that time. Meaning if they get sick, they get the same treatment your average person does in jail gets. Special treatment or perceived special treatment means those officers spends 24 hours.

Again, the point is to be inconvenience but recurring abuses would inherently turn that to more than inconvenience - which would, in turn, be costly to the company and its reputation.

If, collectively, they've served 1 year (365 days) - they are now a felon. Really more of a formality to make a point to discourage recurring abuses and to carry across them company hopping and golden parachutes.

I'm sure 10,000 people will point out why this idea is shit though.. this is one of those ideas I had on the shitter, so very poorly thought out.

1

WarAndGeese t1_itt9wl7 wrote

It's sinister but it makes sense. It's like those income-based speeding tickets that exist in some countries, you see news stories of someone get caught speeding and having to pay tens of thousands of dollars. Time is something that's limited to all people, so taking away a day from one person hurts them equally, unlike a hundred or a thousand dollars. In fact a lot of the wealthy, at least the entrepreneurial ones, value time a lot more than manye people, take away a week or two and it's a very big hit to them, even just from their mentality. Hence the threat of taking away a day or a few weeks would do a lot to deter them. Also like you said, if they keep getting hit by day-long 'fines', then they won't be able to run their C-suite roles and could have to pass them up. Taking time away from people is wrong and sinister and unfair, but we already do it to the poor and those from classes we don't like, there are so many people with multi-year and even lifelong sentences over minor crimes. We should free those people but in the meantime it wouldn't be inconsistent from that angle to do what you're saying.

1

Odd-Change9942 t1_itu9lns wrote

Americans like being taken advantage of otherwise they would have done something about all the Corrupt shit going on in congress and with all the corrupt politicians stealing them blind . WAKE UP ALREADY

1

ludicrouspeed t1_ito3664 wrote

Remember these assclowns actually had a policy of “don’t be evil”

0