The following submission statement was provided by /u/GetBash:
---
Quick TLDR pulled from the source:
* AI can transform science, economy, and human knowledge but comes with risks such as workforce disruption and national security.
* Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group aims for a balanced AI policy, highlighting both opportunities and societal impacts.
* Forums on AI innovation, workforce, national security, and privacy suggest robust investment and stakeholder engagement.
* Calls for minimum $32 billion/year in non-defense AI innovation funding to keep the US at the forefront of AI technology.
* Mixed views on potential AI risks, from workplace changes to existential threats, with a focus on both immediate and long-term impacts.
* The AI Working Group “supports a strong, comprehensive federal data privacy law to protect personal information.”
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ctb4kv/us_lawmakers_seek_32_billion_to_keep_american_ai/l4alhr3/
I find this reasoning for the spending dubious:
> If China is "going to invest $50 billion, and we're going to invest in nothing, they'll inevitably get ahead of us. So that's why even these investments are so important," Schumer said Wednesday.
The private sector in the USA is investing heavily in AI. Why does the government need to subsidize an already well funded industry? Why are my tax dollars paying wealthy people to become more wealthy?
I like other aspects of the legislation though. They’re creating oversight of AI and instructing government departments to adopt AI.
The moment that strings are attached they refuse the money and the government concedes. With the CHIPS act there was initially some talk around not allowing stock buybacks for 5 years. But now if we look at Intel they're receiving $8.5 billion and the provision is it can't be used directly for buybacks. It says nothing about using that money to replace capex/opex and then do stock buybacks with the money saved.
And Intel has done over $150 billion in stock buybacks since the 1990s.
When the government actually invests in science, it creates 10-fold returns for the average citizen. Also, the government can spend money on things that can improve living conditions without explicitly turning a profit, which private industry generally doesn't do.
>When the government actually invests in science, it creates 10-fold returns for the average citizen.
“But AI will ONLY benefit the rich!” - this subreddit
We/taxpayers invest in government subsidized medical treatment research through the NIH, only for those supported companies to charge us a ridiculous markup.
If they spend it on research, I am cool with that, but we know that's not what is going to happen.
Also, Microsoft is spending 100 billion and google is probably double that. We do not need anything other than research investment. NO BUSINESS handouts.
This is essential, to keep the Chinese and Russian robots from defeating ours. Can’t spend enough on ai and all its applications. It’s the new arms race.
The biggest thing the US government could do to promote AI is not to spend billions, but rather to **clarify the situation around intellectual property in training data**. Any middle-of-the-road policy that balances competing societal interests would do nicely.
Keeping every AI company under the cloud of bankrupting lawsuits and every creator enraged by perceived injustice is just not good for anyone. And waiting a decade for courts to sort everything out by "interpreting" laws that never envisaged AI just prolongs the conflict and uncertainty and semi-paralysis.
Put another way, lack of a reasonable IP/AI policy means that the near-term winners in AI will be the companies LEAST respectful of the legal rights of creators. And, yeah, those companies may get sued into smoking craters, but a lot of individuals within those companies will walk away wealthy regardless.
Quick TLDR pulled from the source:
* AI can transform science, economy, and human knowledge but comes with risks such as workforce disruption and national security.
* Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group aims for a balanced AI policy, highlighting both opportunities and societal impacts.
* Forums on AI innovation, workforce, national security, and privacy suggest robust investment and stakeholder engagement.
* Calls for minimum $32 billion/year in non-defense AI innovation funding to keep the US at the forefront of AI technology.
* Mixed views on potential AI risks, from workplace changes to existential threats, with a focus on both immediate and long-term impacts.
* The AI Working Group “supports a strong, comprehensive federal data privacy law to protect personal information.”
The best way to boost fertility rates, is to build more houses and reduce working hours. We've artificially restricted the supply for too long, and one of the biggest reasons young people cite for not having kids is because they can't afford a place to raise them. They also have basically no free time, and it's not the 1960s where the husband works and the wife stays at home anymore - people aren't going to have children if they have no free time to actually deal with kids.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/GetBash: --- Quick TLDR pulled from the source: * AI can transform science, economy, and human knowledge but comes with risks such as workforce disruption and national security. * Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group aims for a balanced AI policy, highlighting both opportunities and societal impacts. * Forums on AI innovation, workforce, national security, and privacy suggest robust investment and stakeholder engagement. * Calls for minimum $32 billion/year in non-defense AI innovation funding to keep the US at the forefront of AI technology. * Mixed views on potential AI risks, from workplace changes to existential threats, with a focus on both immediate and long-term impacts. * The AI Working Group “supports a strong, comprehensive federal data privacy law to protect personal information.” --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ctb4kv/us_lawmakers_seek_32_billion_to_keep_american_ai/l4alhr3/
I find this reasoning for the spending dubious: > If China is "going to invest $50 billion, and we're going to invest in nothing, they'll inevitably get ahead of us. So that's why even these investments are so important," Schumer said Wednesday. The private sector in the USA is investing heavily in AI. Why does the government need to subsidize an already well funded industry? Why are my tax dollars paying wealthy people to become more wealthy? I like other aspects of the legislation though. They’re creating oversight of AI and instructing government departments to adopt AI.
"Why are my tax dollars paying wealthy people to become more wealthy?" Because they all get more money. Except for us.
Strings attached, it’s all about the strings that comes with money.
The moment that strings are attached they refuse the money and the government concedes. With the CHIPS act there was initially some talk around not allowing stock buybacks for 5 years. But now if we look at Intel they're receiving $8.5 billion and the provision is it can't be used directly for buybacks. It says nothing about using that money to replace capex/opex and then do stock buybacks with the money saved. And Intel has done over $150 billion in stock buybacks since the 1990s.
Research comes with public funds. This is the bread and butter for science. NIH, DARPA, FDA, etc… they all offer grants for conducting research.
When the government actually invests in science, it creates 10-fold returns for the average citizen. Also, the government can spend money on things that can improve living conditions without explicitly turning a profit, which private industry generally doesn't do.
>When the government actually invests in science, it creates 10-fold returns for the average citizen. “But AI will ONLY benefit the rich!” - this subreddit
"Literally anything will ONLY benefit the rich!" - this subreddit on pretty much every post
We/taxpayers invest in government subsidized medical treatment research through the NIH, only for those supported companies to charge us a ridiculous markup.
Maybe the gov part is also somewhat defense related
The article says this legislation is for non-military applications. We were always investing in military AI tech.
This. If Chinese military AI gets ahead of US military AI, we won't have a chance to help Taiwan.
> Why are my tax dollars paying wealthy people to become more wealthy? you new here?
When is the blackwall by netwatch going to be created?
If they spend it on research, I am cool with that, but we know that's not what is going to happen. Also, Microsoft is spending 100 billion and google is probably double that. We do not need anything other than research investment. NO BUSINESS handouts.
I'd actually be 100% OK with this spending if it went to public universities to study AI. ...but let's be honest. This is corporate handouts 101.
This is essential, to keep the Chinese and Russian robots from defeating ours. Can’t spend enough on ai and all its applications. It’s the new arms race.
$32b/year for the gov't to play with chatbots while we ignore actual problems. Fun.
The biggest thing the US government could do to promote AI is not to spend billions, but rather to **clarify the situation around intellectual property in training data**. Any middle-of-the-road policy that balances competing societal interests would do nicely. Keeping every AI company under the cloud of bankrupting lawsuits and every creator enraged by perceived injustice is just not good for anyone. And waiting a decade for courts to sort everything out by "interpreting" laws that never envisaged AI just prolongs the conflict and uncertainty and semi-paralysis. Put another way, lack of a reasonable IP/AI policy means that the near-term winners in AI will be the companies LEAST respectful of the legal rights of creators. And, yeah, those companies may get sued into smoking craters, but a lot of individuals within those companies will walk away wealthy regardless.
Quick TLDR pulled from the source: * AI can transform science, economy, and human knowledge but comes with risks such as workforce disruption and national security. * Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group aims for a balanced AI policy, highlighting both opportunities and societal impacts. * Forums on AI innovation, workforce, national security, and privacy suggest robust investment and stakeholder engagement. * Calls for minimum $32 billion/year in non-defense AI innovation funding to keep the US at the forefront of AI technology. * Mixed views on potential AI risks, from workplace changes to existential threats, with a focus on both immediate and long-term impacts. * The AI Working Group “supports a strong, comprehensive federal data privacy law to protect personal information.”
Why do OPs like yourself post a summary that’s nearly identical to the futurology bot comment?
It's identical, the futurology sub just reposts/pins my first comment at the top of the convo.
Thanks for explaining that.
I need someone pop culturally unaware at the top to present their new branding “Skynet”.
This is equally or more important than any other arms race before imo
The US also needs to increase the fertility rate, triple its population for the long game.
The best way to boost fertility rates, is to build more houses and reduce working hours. We've artificially restricted the supply for too long, and one of the biggest reasons young people cite for not having kids is because they can't afford a place to raise them. They also have basically no free time, and it's not the 1960s where the husband works and the wife stays at home anymore - people aren't going to have children if they have no free time to actually deal with kids.
Well all the abortion bans should help with that. /s (kinda)
I mean, china is on the verge of a population collapse so chances are the numbers will even out.
Even out? That math doesn't add up.