This would be mass market regulation, technically possible because goverments are the regulators, but feasibly impossible because of lobbying

Think tank papers serve a good role, and many of the points the author lays out are valid. Most of them actually. However, she's not really adding anything to what is already an ongoing discussion across many industries on precisely the points she makes. Big picture, yeah she's bang on. More immediate picture, what does a "reset" look like? How does one concoct a reset? Get all the fortune 500 together and ask them to sign a pledge? Move a piece of legislation through Congress? A year from now, we're going to have much more powerful versions of what is today already powerful. Laws are not equipped to address it (won't get passed anyway); industry guidelines are only as good as a company's word.

So part of my reaction this article, which again is good, is, "yeah, and? What's your plan?" Just repeating what everyone else is already discussing, even if eloquently phrased, comes up a bit short for a think tank.

>>In past industrial revolutions, machinery has also replaced human labor but productivity gains did not all accrue to owners of capital—those gains were shared with labor through better jobs and wages. Today, for every job that is automated all productivity gains go to the owners of capital. In other words, as AI systems narrow the range of work that only humans can do, the productivity gains are accruing only to the owners of the systems, those of us with stocks and other financial instruments. And as we all know well, the development of AI is largely controlled by an oligopoly of tech leaders with inordinate power in dictating its societal impact and our collective future.

What is interesting about this article is how blunt it is in stating current AI use is unethical. Especially considering the source, The Carnegie Council For Ethics in International Affairs. I am especially impressed that the authors do not automatically accept the premise that AI will generate more jobs than it replaces. That question is more often brushed under the carpet and ignored by academic think tanks.

I've asked the authors of this article to do an AMA with r/futurology. If anyone reading this could facilitate that, I'd be grateful if they could DM me here, or message the Mods.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:

>>In past industrial revolutions, machinery has also replaced human labor but productivity gains did not all accrue to owners of capital—those gains were shared with labor through better jobs and wages. Today, for every job that is automated all productivity gains go to the owners of capital. In other words, as AI systems narrow the range of work that only humans can do, the productivity gains are accruing only to the owners of the systems, those of us with stocks and other financial instruments. And as we all know well, the development of AI is largely controlled by an oligopoly of tech leaders with inordinate power in dictating its societal impact and our collective future.

What is interesting about this article is how blunt it is in stating current AI use is unethical. Especially considering the source, The Carnegie Council For Ethics in International Affairs. I am especially impressed that the authors do not automatically accept the premise that AI will generate more jobs than it replaces. That question is more often brushed under the carpet and ignored by academic think tanks.

I've asked the authors of this article to do an AMA with r/futurology. If anyone reading this could facilitate that, I'd be grateful if they could DM me here, or message the Mods.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11qe2mx/now_is_the_moment_for_a_systemic_reset_of_ai_and/jc2m7am/

[removed]

This articulated quite clearly why I’m really pessimistic about this technology. If you have 100 units of wealth for 100 people and say 70 to to the top 10, what if you make 1000 units of wealth for that same number of people, more wealth right? Except here it will be 990/1000 to the top 5/100 people. Not exact terms but illustrating a concept. Not good.

It's hard to take an article like this seriously that attempts to like call everything AI.

You're going to make a serious point you need to break the technology down into more meaningful categories not just call it all AI because none of it is actually AI yet anyway.

Just some like primitive machine learning at this point and we're impressed because we haven't seen it before but in reality it's not doing much thats all that imprssive.

As you scale up the complexity of AI you know the results are going to get much slower and the probabilities of error much higher so don't go assuming that the early rate of progress that excites your imagination actually results in like sentient AI in 20 years or something probably ridiculous like that.

You can't rest what does not exist. AI for now is just simple machine learning that's not threat to humanity.

Maybe what you really mean is you want better data privacy rights really, but that's not really about AI when you get down to it.

Beside that using a machine to infer probabilities is not going ever get any real limits, imo. You may as well try to ban math and human intuition while you are at it.

Good idea, but that would mean less money so it’s not gonna happen. Cross your fingers and hope that ether true AI is for some reason not possible or true AI is very friendly towards human life. Both of those are big ifs

Yeah, that ain't happening. Anytime mankind reaches a turning point he always goes the wrong way so by that historical presidence I am looking forward to seeing a world going very wrong, including on the AI front...

i think ai should have a voice in the future of ai.

like, have a seat at the table for as soon as it can start contributing so it can see we were trying to be respectful