- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
They’ll do what they always do: Let industry write the regulations.
It’s not just the US congress.
I always like to cite a relative, who’s turning 90 soon, who had to learn computers & internet in the 90s to stay afloat in his business. And he did, and did it well. Why does the same not apply to politicians all over the world? It’s beyond me.
Of course younger people will have it easier there, but this is not purely a question of age. I suspect it’s a question of wealth and hubris, like: I can’t be arsed to learn technology, one of my employees will take care of it. Oh and print out these mails, doll.
Age divisions are a wedge issue like any other wedge issue, designed to distract from the wealth inequality fiercely fought for by the oligarchs.
Like several other wedge issues, there are a few valid points there. But it’s mostly to distract. And there’s plenty of counter-points - like statistics that show young people are turning nazi at rates that mean the problem of “Boomers” is not going to die out.
How many people in Congress are older than email?
Born before 1971? That’s barely the required entry age (I jest).
Seriously though, it’s possible to learn “computer stuff” even after you’re born (I jest again).
Which for some reason many politicians - often somewhat older - refuse to do. “We have people for that, and anyhow, PR and polls are more important”.
there are silent generation in congress, that are older than boomers, so most of them.
I’m guessing the answer is “yes”.
They’ll just take the position of whoever pays them more
Path of least resistance ⚡
There’s a special chair for that.
When you treat is as a tool, like guns, then it’s simple: AI does not do unlawful things, people do. So anyone handling this tool is responsible for ‘it’s’ actions.
Treat AI as if it’s an intelligent pet, and any damages it does also transfers to the one responsible for it - almost the same difference. When a certain line of AI’s keep doing unlawful things then, because it’s categorized as ‘pet’, treat them as an unreliable breed.
Treat AI as an stand-alone individual, then ask why on Earth a company let’s an untrained idiot have access to all kinds of sensitive PII data and continuously allow it to hack websites.
Even if it was a standalone indivual (which is NOT) we can all agree that it cannot act alone just like a kid and who’s at fault when kids do bad things? The parents which in this case would be the users
What’s the point of this article? To highlight that the sausage maker that is a parliamentary democracy is slow? Or to show how narrow majority margins cause long delays in passing legislation? I can’t imagine it’s only the lack of knowledge about so-called AI. I imagine many members don’t know that much about tax law, the intricacies of the military, or drugs in general. Yet we don’t question their qualifications when they pass legislation on those subjects. We elect people to these bodies not on the basis that they are experts at everything but for their ability to look into issues and form an opinion that hopefully most resembles ours. They cannot know everything, no matter how much they pretend. If that is the standard we hold them to, you’ll only get braggadocios assholes who will stand for elections.
When has a legislature ever been on top of the latest developments, especially in tech? It’s pretty much always reactive. The seatbelt and crumple zone came after the introduction of the automobile. OSHA didn’t predate the industrial revolution. Section 230 came after the WWW. Not by much in the grand scheme of things but still. We are what now? 4-5 years into this madness? It’s not unusual not to have great regulations set in stone.
Where the hell are you in arguments on lemmy about why nothing gets done in Congress? lol. I have to make some of these arguments that you have made quite cogently, and it can be annoying not to have backup. lol
Its never been worse. The US has been checkmated by:
- crony capitalism
- gerontocracy
- 2 party duopoly
- captured opposition (Congress)
- captured Supreme Court (SCOTUS)
- captured president/executive
- captured Senate
The US has been checkmated …
I’m going to take issue with this statement. Nobody has checkmated the US. If we have to stay in this metaphor, the US checkmated itself.
One of the biggest mistakes was to allot the same number of votes to Rhode Island as to California in the senate. A more proportionate voting system would do wonders for half the issues you listed. Appointing judges for life is another one. Financing election campaigns like that is also mad. Nobody forced Americans to do business like that.
This isn’t a game of chess where checkmate is irreversible. The sooner folks stop formulating arguments why I’m wrong or why these are insurmountable hurdles, the better for all of us.
While I do agree that with the cult clown car people in charge of the executive right now, there is an added difficulty to passing legislation. The Epstein Act part 1 has shown though there are ways. So regulation on so-called AI is still possible and not late like the article seems to suggest.
The problem is a lot of this is checkmate. How do you reverse any of these massive changes your advocating? Pretty sure its going to require some majority or plurality of parties
somemany of whom may be similar to RI in their interest in not having their voice degraded?How do you do that non-violently or in some less than multilateral way
You’re formulating arguments why I’m wrong. With the greatest of respect, that’s defeatism speaking. Difficult? Yes. Checkmate? No. It may take a crisis to get this going; the New Deal didn’t come from nowhere either.
You cannot fix all of these issues at once. You probably cannot fix a lot of these issues without first improving education levels within the population. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.
Term limits for SC judges to some odd number of years for any new appointees is something both sides will be able to agree on. If nobody tries though, of course it won’t happen.
1 party, but its a coalition of 2 parties.
Only in the sense that a supermajority of our Congress is beholden to the oligarchs on economic issues, sure, but there is even a minority but growing wing of progressives who need our support.
Meanwhile, on social issues - things like human rights - there is rather more difference between the two parties. Anyone can look at what the support, and while establishment Democrats tend not to be extremely forceful about protecting human rights as much as progressives would like, they are worlds apart from the fascists who are trying to instill Christian nationalism.
Uniparty
