• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is pure theater, unenforceable, and it wouldn’t hold up in court for a second. You can’t just add “no takebacksies!” to a law and make it permanent.

    • L7HM77@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s theater, but it would be fun theater to drag the big companies marketing “super intelligence” into a courtroom, just to go on record stating that they do not have, and can not make, super intelligence.

  • wampus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Sounds sorta… silly, honestly. Yeah, we need a course correction on AI, or more, we need a significant course correction on big tech. But a city council ‘banning’ it, without understanding / clarity on what they’re banning, is nuts.

    Like here they define a bit clearer what they’re banning –

    ban autonomous systems that can modify their own core algorithms, run code outside their initial sandbox or perform complex tasks without continuous human oversight if those tasks could affect municipal networks, banking, financial markets or public safety.

    Most enterprise firewalls would fall into this category, email filters too. Got an email system that automatically updates its algorithm to block malicious attackers? Banned. Even a simple script to help with sorting through financial data – like doing money-laundering/fraud checks overnight, with an outputed report in the morning for staff to investigate when they get in, would potentially fit the ban criteria.

    Most 24/7 continuous monitoring systems that use algorithms to send alerts/notify humans would fall into this category – they’re specifically designed to watch for complex variable combinations, and then alert humans when potential issues shows up, so they’re explicitly designed not to be running “continuously under human oversight”.

    “AI” is such a broad/undefined term, that blanket banning tends to also ban technology based on algorithms that’ve been around for multiple decades, without significant issues. Sorta like how the EU’s initial AI regulations had to make all these absurd carve outs for things like “Credit Scores”, because a credit score is technically an algorithm, and they were legislating algorithms.

    The ban’s also nearly impossible to enforce, given its scope, and where “AI” has its hooks. Like if you ban AI, but all of Microsoft’s products have it entrenched at this point… while I don’t agree with it, I guarantee you the government / council would rather be in a state of non-compliance with their own law, rather than use Linux.

  • BigDiction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 days ago

    People are talking about the ban itself but in what fucking world would a law only be repealed with consent of “95% of registered voters” LMAO

    • Godric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah, that’s what stuck out to me as well. What the fuck is that pretending to give power to the voters bullshit?

    • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s a thing in the sense that unicorns are a thing. There aren’t any currently, but it’s a coherent concept. If they banned unicorns within city limits, the ban wouldn’t do anything unless someone managed to make a unicorn; same idea with ASI.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s a real term.

      “Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical stage of AI where a computer system surpasses the cognitive performance and problem-solving abilities of the most gifted human minds across every domain of interest.”

      • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago
        1. that’s an “industry term” in the same way that “panopticon” is a prison industry term, or that “brain in a vat” is a neurology term. It’s a name made up by science fiction writers and philosophers to describe a thing that does not exist, and has never existed. Might it exist in the future? Maybe, but that’s irrelevant to an issue of law. You can’t pass a law banning an ill-defined “panopticon”, because that isn’t a term of art enshrined in any US code.
        2. because, as you say, it is purely hypothetical, such a law would be unenforceable, and would likely fail a test in court.
        3. because it is, once again, nonexistent as of yet, the burden is on you to prove that they aren’t specifically referring to the term which the Shit lord of Hamberder enshrined in his executive declaration, because that use of “Superintelligence” actually has a basis in current US government parlance.
      • etc@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I really want to see how they measure the “cognitive performance” of an LLM…

        I also want to know what part of problem solving exists outside of these tests, as it’s actually a core component of cognitive testing.

        Seems like someone made shit up, I’m guessing using an LLM…

  • Mr.Dark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    151
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    In the US, you cannot ban people from using an app on their personal phone in your community. This is just ignorant. I’m not an AI bro, but you can’t just have each community deciding on what constitutional rights they want to violate.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Constitutional rights are made up, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution however they want.

      That’s how they’re forcing ID laws onto porn now. They make up some shit about “reasonableness” and your rights are gone.

      • Kewlio250@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        69
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        That would likely violate the first amendment. Many of the ways you use your phone are considered forms of speech/expression. Wholesale banning of sectors of these by a government is a legitimate violation of your rights.

        Fuck AI, tho.

      • DougPiranha42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        In all seriousness, if someone wanted to sue that local government referring the first amendment, they would likely take the ban down.

        That said, I don’t find any actual article from a reputable news outlet describing what actually happened and what is in the city council ordinance. Likely a brief unenforceable article, which, as such, has no bearing on anyone’s life.

        A redditor mentioned they banned “self improving” ai, which, if true, would explain why it isn’t getting more coverage- this is a nothing burger.

        • AmyAye@nord.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 days ago

          A redditor mentioned they banned “self improving” ai, which, if true, would explain why it isn’t getting more coverage- this is a nothing burger.

          The year is 2029, Meta’s GrokBots have taken over the world. They approach Bloomington Indiana, their next target. A kindly older gentleman approaches the army on the outskirts of town.

          “Sorry boys, we banned self improving AI back in 2026, you are not allowed here.”

          The robots nod and continue onward, parting around the outskirts of town like a river flowing around a rock.

          The town is saved. It becomes the last bastion of humanity within 6 months.

          • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago
            a big sign outside town says
                                                 :                                  
                                                 ;;                                 
                                                / |                                   
                                               /  |                                 
                                             .'   :                                 
                                          .-'     '                                  
                                      _.-'       /                                   
                                  .-*"          /                                _   
                               .-'            .'                            _.-*?'  
                             .'             .'                           .-"  .'    __  
                           .'      ,     .-'                           .-+.  .' _.-*".'  
                          /        \  .-'         _.--**""**-.     .-'  _.y-:-"   .'      
                         :          `+.       .*""*.          `.  :-. -.     \  .'    
                         ;        .--*""*--. / __   `  _.--.    \ |$| -.`   -.;/ _.-+.  
                         :      .'          :*"  "*..*"          y`-' $|      ;*"  _(      
                          \    /      +----/ / .'.-'---+  .-._.+' `.  -'_.--. :- "_(     
                           `*-:       |    \/\/\/      | /)     `     .'___   ' "_(  
                              ;    `._|   robots.txt   | \  )`      .'.'   `./_" (   
                              :      \|                | (`._..--**" : .-    ; `"'   
                               \      |                |  `----**"T"" " `+.  |       
                                `.    |  Fuck off      |         '     .'    :            
                              _.-*"*- |  godsdamn      |            / /      '       
                          .-*" _      |   toasters     |      __..-'\       /  
                           "+,'___..--|                |--**""       `-.__.'            
                             ""       +----------------+                            
            
        • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          The output technically belongs to the AI company, does the first amendment apply to non human entities? If it does I don’t think anyone should be supporting that application …

      • Radieschen@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        Banning it outright is ableist, there’s no need include the right to use certain apps in the Constitution.

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          There aren’t disabilities that require access to the plagiarism machine; it’s insulting to act like disabled people can’t write or make art.

          • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            there are few things ablebodied people find more offensive than a disabled person who can outperform them.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Maybe, but this isn’t discussing using an app on your phone. This is discussing an app using a service that is not on your phone. If you’re running a model locally then sure, they probably can’t do anything about that. If it’s a product being sold by a company then they can.

      As an obvious example, they can ban you from using a child pornography app (regardless of if it’s local-only). I’m certain you agree that they’re allowed to do that, right? It’s obvious in that example. What’s the difference with AI if they ban that?

      • Mr.Dark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        CP is illegal everywhere. ChatGPT is a legal app. Replace ChsrGPT with another legal product, like Apple: “I don’t like Apple business decisions so we ban all Apple products from being used in our town”. Apple products are legal. Should they be able to tell you that you can’t use any Apple services in their town?

        Imagine if every community could tell you what legal products you cannot use privately within their city limits. It is absurd.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It’s not that absurd. Consider weapons (not guns, because the Supreme Court doesn’t know how to read the 2A), or drugs (like Kratom, which has been causing issues lately). Do you agree they can regulate those? They’re federally legal. That doesn’t mean they can’t be illegal locally. There are a lot of things that are legal federally but locally illegal.

          • Mr.Dark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Again you are making arguments that are not equal. Communities have always had the right to regulate sales. That’s why pornography bans and alcohol bans exist. But it is for the sale of the restricted product. You can drink alcohol in a dry county, you just have to drive across the county line.

            It is not only absurd, but it is unenforceable without forcing people to allow authorities to inspect their phones and computers or spy on their web traffic.

            They do not have the right to create a law that infringes on your personal rights to access legal content. It’s so absurd it’s more likely a stunt to influence ignorant voters than an ordinance they plan to ever act upon.

    • mrnngglry@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s a product. It can be banned. It’s dumb and shows a general lack of understanding by those in charge but I don’t see what this has to do with the first amendment or the constitution more broadly.

  • FukOui@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Don’t call it artificial superintellgience FFS ☠️☠️☠️

      • CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s really easy to make the argument an LLM is not an “artificial super intelligence” because it’s not. Remember it’s the letter of the law that often matters not the spirit of it

        • JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          But what does the law do when the people making it call it that as well? Seems like a really easy argument to make, pointing at press releases, tweets by CEOs, IPO filings etc. using that language?

      • FukOui@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        LLMs are not artificial super intelligence! They’re just text prediction machines with some reinforcement learning and are not smart enough to be considered such

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Yeah, we all understand that around here. ASI is an industry term for a hypothetical future where AI achieves actual intelligence beyond humans.

  • Hupf@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    With Artificial Super Intelligence now banned, Sam Altman announced plans to direct more r&d resources towards Artificial General Intelligence instead.

  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    What does that mean?

    What does this law actually ban? ChatGPT? I think the fuck not.

    Does it ban something that doesn’t exist yet, but might exist someday? If so, what is it, other than a feel-good measure that does nothing?

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Basically the definition it uses to define what is banned is so broad it probably makes all computers and smart phones illegal. The simplest thing to do is for someone in the city to argue that its illegal and get it revoked which takes a fraction of 1% of registered voters instead of nearly all of them.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Apple is putting a tiny LLM on your phone.

      I hope this means the “i” in “iPhone” isn’t for “indiana”.

  • WraithGear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    2 days ago

    you don’t have to change the law if you change what words mean, and in this case, they did not ban llm’s. they banned a thing that does not exist

  • nastronot@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Banning shit that my monkey brain likes is bad.

    Banning shit that my monkey brain hates is good.

    I’m a smart monkey.

    Other monkey dumb.

    • BigPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Easy, if a company in Bloomington says “it was just our AI chatbot,” busted. If a person says “well, Grok told me,” busted - hope you live outside city limits. If a small business uses the slop font, send in the SWAT team, we got 'em boys. Tune all the city’s Flock cameras to watch everyone’s phones and we’ll root out this cancer!

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You’ve missed the entire point. ASI is a real industry term and it does not exist, may not exist in our lifetimes. This was a safe bet by the council to make them look like they’re doing something about AI when all they did was to ban leprechauns.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Unwanted AI on your smartphone while driving through town? That’s a fine and a jail sentence. Genius.

  • NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is so dumb and exactly what I would imagine from Indiana. Everyone in here cheering it on is braindead.

    Life is never as simple as people like this wish it was.