US Senator Uses ChatGPT for Opening Remarks at a Hearing on AI

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-16/a-us-senator-just-used-chatgpt-for-opening-remarks-at-a-hearing

by makaimc • 3 years ago

63 53 3 years ago

valine• 3 years ago

It's an old, stale gimmick, but considering how out of touch our congress can be, it's likely one they haven't seen before.

awestroke• 3 years ago

Old? Chatgpt has only existed for half a year, v4 for a month

tobr• 3 years ago

Old as in old news, or an old joke.

pgwhalen• 3 years ago

Memes can get old fast: a few months ago, it was hugely popular for podcasters/journalists/etc. to use ChatGPT to generate some sort of introduction for their work.

emily-c• 3 years ago

Recording of the opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfd6J3M-FSk

tempodox• 3 years ago

Not surprising. Another senator used Jack Bauer from the series “24” to “prove” that torture is an effective interrogation technique.

tomca32• 3 years ago

This is a tangent but it reminded me of Christopher Hitchens when he used to claim that waterboarding is not torture. He then subjected himself to waterboarding to prove that it's not torture and changed his mind in 5 seconds.

Despite me not agreeing with a lot of what he said I really respected that he was willing to put his belief to the test and then actually changed his mind when he was proven wrong.

LeFantome• 3 years ago

You have to respect evidence driven for sure.

tylersmith• 3 years ago

The conservative radio host "Mancow" did the same thing. I don't think I've ever heard a story of someone getting waterboarding and still maintaining that it's not torture.

throw101010• 3 years ago

Seems a bit dissimilar, demonstrating something is possible right now, out of the realm of fiction, seems like a decent way to incite people do discuss the issue. Especially to a crowd that most likely has no idea of the recent AI advancements and the ease of access to this technology by almost anyone.

clnq2• 3 years ago

That part of the opening written by GPT was an effective illustration of GPT and voice AI capabilities. How it is comparable to using a TV show to justify torture?

mguerville• 3 years ago

I think it's smart, it makes it tangible to an audience that has time and time again demonstrated incompetence at understanding technology when explained with any level of abstraction.

seydor5• 3 years ago

He already made the first step to his replacement.

hammyhavoc6• 3 years ago

Unlike human beings, LLMs have no explicit world model, they're an LLM. Why would a politician be replaced by an LLM? It seems like a highly inappropriate use.

AnimalMuppet2• 3 years ago

Hmm. If you trained an LLM on all the feedback a Senator receives from constituents, that could be pretty effective.

Of course, once word gets out that that's what's going on, it will turn into a contest of which side of an issue can spam the Senator's office harder...

seydor5• 3 years ago

Neural networks are great at optimizing when the objectives are agreed upon and well known, and will not abuse power for their own gain (that is one objective).

Why would you want humans instead?

patrickas2• 3 years ago

LLMs do have explicit world models that can be even manipulated. There are many recent papers on the subject.

clnq2• 3 years ago

How is using an effective tool the first step to one's replacement? I would argue that rejecting the tools available to one is a bigger step in that direction.

0ct4via• 3 years ago

https://archive.is/2mF13

zh3• 3 years ago

More on this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65610337

I'd have expected multiple new submissions on this (given it's Sam Altman) but can't see anything and my submissions (one with a repeat in case I messed it up) aren't showing.

doodlesdev• 3 years ago

https://archive.ph/2mF13

toomuchtodo• 3 years ago

OpenAI CEO Testifies on Artificial Intelligence
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, whose company created ChatGPT, is one of three artificial intelligence experts testifying on oversight of the swiftly developing technology at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing

https://www.c-span.org/video/?528117-1/openai-ceo-testifies-...

duringmath• 3 years ago

Please don't fall for these dumb gimmicks.

Regulating emerging tech only benefits the incumbents.

On a side note, that guy used to be a state attorney general before he became a senator which is not an uncommon trajectory unfortunately, his kind (prosecutors) aren't equipped to formulate meaningful laws and regs they're mindset is that of banning things outright and supporting prosecution and long prison sentences to generate headlines and further their careers.

polski-g• 3 years ago

Its a pointless endeavor. Software is protected under the First Amendment: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...

beerpls• 3 years ago

Otoh software has been used a lot in recent years to effectively diminish the first amendment too

dmm• 3 years ago

Software is protected under the First Amendment

And if it's dangerous enough, the Second.

ethbr02• 3 years ago

Autonomous systems should be regulated.

But we should start on the data side and not the compute/action side.

The current worst excesses stem from a lack of transparency and access into data backing a given system.

Meaningful data privacy & ownership reform would curtail these and still permit innovation.

lumost• 3 years ago

Counter point, there are already limited consumer protection laws with regards to algorithmic decision making in the United States. There are very few speed bumps to rolling out ChatGPT like systems for decision making - even if it makes bad decisions. It's easy to imagine that LLMs could be used to make decisions which are manifestly illegal simply by virtue of being black boxes.

That being said, regulating the producer of the LLM technology seems like the wrong approach compared to regulating the outcome. OpenAI asking to block new entrants is the surest sign I've seen that they don't believe their moat is all that deep.

In practical terms, Google got its initial moat because it would cost X dollars and take Y time to catch up to them. There were only 2-3 firms who could plausibly pursue this in the 2000s. The claim that AI firms will either become commoditized or that they will have to spend X billion per year in ads to maintain their edge is not unfounded.

mathquestion• 3 years ago

Autonomous systems should be regulated.

Why?

NumberWangMan3• 3 years ago

You sound skeptical of regulation. I think being skeptical of regulation may be a heuristic that almost always works. (1)

I won't argue that the incentives for regulators aren't really messed up.

But I argue that AI is different from just about any tech we've ever created because of:

* its potential to destroy vast number of jobs faster than any previous kind of tech. * its ability to destroy those jobs permanently and thoroughly. To not leave any space left where humans can provide more value than machines. * its ability to vastly accelerate the development of many other kinds of technology, good and bad, and destabilize our already unstable society further. * its potential, not that far off, to eventually think, make decisions for itself, and have its own goals which may conflict with humanity. All the existential risk stuff.

(1) https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that-almost...

taylodl• 3 years ago

Regulating emerging tech only benefits the incumbents

I especially think that's true when you see the incumbents going up to the Hill and advocating for an AI license.

TechBro8615• 3 years ago

Kudos to the guy in the thread yesterday who predicted this exactly.

US Senator Uses ChatGPT for Opening Remarks at a Hearing on AI

Related Stories