OpenAI is lobbying the White House to limit state-level regulations on artificial intelligence, arguing that a patchwork of rules would hinder innovation and make compliance difficult for companies like theirs. They prefer a federal approach focusing on the most capable AI models, suggesting future regulations should concentrate on systems significantly more powerful than those currently available. OpenAI believes this approach would allow for responsible development while preventing a stifling regulatory environment.
The UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), along with GCHQ, quietly removed official advice recommending the use of Apple's device encryption for protecting sensitive information. While no official explanation was given, the change coincides with the UK government's ongoing push for legislation enabling access to encrypted communications, suggesting a conflict between promoting security best practices and pursuing surveillance capabilities. This removal raises concerns about the government's commitment to strong encryption and the potential chilling effect on individuals and organizations relying on such advice for data protection.
HN commenters discuss the UK government's removal of advice recommending Apple's encryption, speculating on the reasons. Some suggest it's due to Apple's upcoming changes to client-side scanning (now abandoned), fearing it weakens end-to-end encryption. Others point to the Online Safety Bill, which could mandate scanning of encrypted messages, making previous recommendations untenable. A few posit the change is related to legal challenges or simply outdated advice, with Apple no longer being the sole provider of strong encryption. The overall sentiment expresses concern and distrust towards the government's motives, with many suspecting a push towards weakening encryption for surveillance purposes. Some also criticize the lack of transparency surrounding the change.
Summary of Comments ( 582 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43352531
HN commenters are skeptical of OpenAI's lobbying efforts to soften state-level AI regulations. Several suggest this move contradicts their earlier stance of welcoming regulation and point out potential conflicts of interest with Microsoft's involvement. Some argue that focusing on federal regulation is a more efficient approach than navigating a patchwork of state laws, while others believe state-level regulations offer more nuanced protection and faster response to emerging AI threats. There's a general concern that OpenAI's true motive is to stifle competition from smaller players who may struggle to comply with extensive regulations. The practicality of regulating "general purpose" AI is also questioned, with comparisons drawn to regulating generic computer programming. Finally, some express skepticism towards OpenAI's professed safety concerns, viewing them as a tactical maneuver to consolidate power.
The Hacker News post titled "OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules" (linking to a Yahoo Finance article about OpenAI lobbying for federal AI regulation) has generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the potential implications of federal versus state-level AI regulation and OpenAI's motivations.
Several commenters express skepticism about OpenAI's seemingly altruistic concerns about a "patchwork" of state regulations. They suggest OpenAI's primary motivation is to avoid stricter regulations that might emerge at the state level, favoring a single, potentially weaker, federal standard. This is viewed as a strategic move to streamline compliance and minimize potential legal challenges. One commenter even draws a parallel to the "regulatory capture" often seen with large corporations influencing federal agencies to their benefit.
Some comments highlight the complexities of federal versus state regulatory approaches. One commenter argues that state-level regulations could be more responsive and adaptable to local needs and concerns regarding AI's impact. Another points out the potential for a federal framework to preempt more stringent state regulations, which could be detrimental.
There's a discussion thread about the potential dangers of powerful AI models. One commenter expresses concern about the inherent risks of such models, regardless of the regulatory framework, while another emphasizes the need for careful consideration of safety and ethical implications in any regulatory approach.
A few commenters touch on the potential constitutional challenges related to interstate commerce and the role of the federal government in regulating AI. However, these comments don't delve into specifics.
Finally, some comments criticize OpenAI's position as self-serving, arguing that a company pushing for regulations that benefit it financially undermines its claims about prioritizing safety and ethical AI development. They suggest OpenAI's actions reveal a focus on profit maximization over genuine concern for the broader societal impacts of AI.