[CaptechPhD]

As an academic I have been thought the importance of thinking critically about everything. I have studied sociology - the concept of social contracts, social norms, defining deviance and the need to incorporate regulations and controls in order to maintain a civil society. Yet it seems that so much of society is about power and control. Who has power, who controls the economy, etc. Scarily, those in power are not always the most intelligent or suited for the role. 

At Blackhat and DefCON 2023, there was a lot of conversation around the need to regulate AI. I was actually rather shocked that this was a topic of conversation at these conferences. The position being taken was that hackers need a seat at the table and be included in regulatory discussions. It made me wonder if power can be balanced if innovation is also represented?

Regulation by its very nature, places limitations and restrictions on its targets. But does regulation have to stiffle innovation? Can regulation and innovation truly co-exist?

[Purgatory]

As an academic I have been thought the importance of thinking critically about everything. I have studied sociology - the concept of social contracts, social norms, defining deviance and the need to incorporate regulations and controls in order to maintain a civil society. Yet it seems that so much of society is about power and control. Who has power, who controls the economy, etc. Scarily, those in power are not always the most intelligent or suited for the role. 

At Blackhat and DefCON 2023, there was a lot of conversation around the need to regulate AI. I was actually rather shocked that this was a topic of conversation at these conferences. The position being taken was that hackers need a seat at the table and be included in regulatory discussions. It made me wonder if power can be balanced if innovation is also represented?

Regulation by its very nature, places limitations and restrictions on its targets. But does regulation have to stiffle innovation? Can regulation and innovation truly co-exist?

This is an exceptionally appreciable question. I mean, the world we live in does revolve around power and who has it the most; alongside influence. Regulation doesn’t need to prevent or even express a decline in innovation. However, regulation is necessary. Without regulation, there is no preventing it from distorting into something it wasn’t meant to be. Those are ramifications we just can not afford. You stated “Regulation by its very nature, places limitations and restrictions on its targets.” I believe those limitations and restrictions are necessary, at the bare minimum. Innovation co-existing with regulation is mere maintenance; control; power… We seemed to have now come full circle.

[yombam]

I think that regulation especially with AI needs to exist to some degree, but can't be too strict otherwise it will hinder innovation. However without rules sometimes AI can get out of hand.

[N]

If it’s regulation for AI, then yeah it’s needed, and will limit innovation.

[RangoWorld]

As an academic I have been thought the importance of thinking critically about everything. I have studied sociology - the concept of social contracts, social norms, defining deviance and the need to incorporate regulations and controls in order to maintain a civil society. Yet it seems that so much of society is about power and control. Who has power, who controls the economy, etc. Scarily, those in power are not always the most intelligent or suited for the role. 

At Blackhat and DefCON 2023, there was a lot of conversation around the need to regulate AI. I was actually rather shocked that this was a topic of conversation at these conferences. The position being taken was that hackers need a seat at the table and be included in regulatory discussions. It made me wonder if power can be balanced if innovation is also represented?

Regulation by its very nature, places limitations and restrictions on its targets. But does regulation have to stiffle innovation? Can regulation and innovation truly co-exist?

This tug and war pull will always continue to happen. There is always a need for balance between regulation and freedom.

We are all here trying to impose one or another to each other. But the question will always be. How much regulation is too much? And how much is too little? The only way to find is for it to happen one way and then society reacts one way or another.

[Phantom_NiNja]

As an academic I have been thought the importance of thinking critically about everything. I have studied sociology - the concept of social contracts, social norms, defining deviance and the need to incorporate regulations and controls in order to maintain a civil society. Yet it seems that so much of society is about power and control. Who has power, who controls the economy, etc. Scarily, those in power are not always the most intelligent or suited for the role. 

At Blackhat and DefCON 2023, there was a lot of conversation around the need to regulate AI. I was actually rather shocked that this was a topic of conversation at these conferences. The position being taken was that hackers need a seat at the table and be included in regulatory discussions. It made me wonder if power can be balanced if innovation is also represented?

Regulation by its very nature, places limitations and restrictions on its targets. But does regulation have to stiffle innovation? Can regulation and innovation truly co-exist?

The U.S.A don't support innovations. They support the opposite.. just look at how they extended the life for copyrights and patents.
Then look at the companies how they work around those laws to make copyrights and patents last infinity. Disney is a good example of this.

The major companies can sue you for any reason. Even if it's fictitious they can sue you and make you pay lawyers.

Any product sold in the U.S.A is upmarked and most are made offshore using cheap labor. Medicine is the highest unmarked products that
are commonly made and produced in India. You can go to india or an asian country and pay for the same medications or dirt cheap.
Compared to buying it here in the U.S.A.

The U.S doesn't want innovation. They want the major companies that have been around to stay around forever dominating the markets.
Intel is a good example we gave them money to build fabs in the U.S.A and due to their stupid decision making at the top they messed up their company. They got new cpu's coming out with thermal issues an shorting. Their patch and solution is to slow down the speed.

[sector]

i feel like ai regulation especially should have been implemented a long time ago-
Artificial Inteligence itself isn't bad, it has amazing uses in medicine and science.. But generative ai imo is really dangerous

[Phantom_NiNja]

i feel like ai regulation especially should have been implemented a long time ago-
Artificial Inteligence itself isn't bad, it has amazing uses in medicine and science.. But generative ai imo is really dangerous

Not just that but people can use that to cheat on exams and in classes. We will have people that are professionals that don't know what they're doing.

[CaptechPhD]

I am happy to see that this post generated so much good discussion. I agree that regulation is necessary. The importance is finding the right balance to ensure that innovation is not unncessarily stiffled.

What is of concern, at least for me, is whether AI will be created by highly intelligence people so that others do not have to strive for the same level of intellect. If we make everything easy, automatic, and convenient the need to learn may be reduced. Of course, there will always likely be certain people who simply enjoy intellectual challenge. But are we setting ourselves up for a society of lots of dummies?

[Purgatory]

I am happy to see that this post generated so much good discussion. I agree that regulation is necessary. The importance is finding the right balance to ensure that innovation is not unncessarily stiffled.

What is of concern, at least for me, is whether AI will be created by highly intelligence people so that others do not have to strive for the same level of intellect. If we make everything easy, automatic, and convenient the need to learn may be reduced. Of course, there will always likely be certain people who simply enjoy intellectual challenge. But are we setting ourselves up for a society of lots of dummies?

Convenience is laziness and promotes sedentary behavior. We Doordash fast food instead of cooking at home because it is convenient. We call off work claiming we’re sick but in reality we are just to lazy to get out of bed because it is convenient. It has been proven time and time again that a striving prosperous society is only possible by means of hard work. Whether that is physical or intellectual work, decreasing the necessary means for education by simplifying the future is just going to leave us stranded with idiots. I mean, look where we are now; even now we are raising and developing careless and stupid humans. I don’t think it’s about enjoying an intellectual challenge, though going through life understanding that simplification can't last forever.

[Blockonome]

Regulation is going to be a very bad thing, when people in power want to crack down on anything they do not like.

[N]

Regulation is going to be a very bad thing, when people in power want to crack down on anything they do not like.

Politicians.