• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    to ensure that the technology is “safe, secure and trustworthy.”

    None of the really iconic AIs are safe, secure or trustworthy.

    • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      30 days ago

      Sadly it is in one respect only: financial services.

      And that’s the only reason why they’re interested; so the City (of London, not Greater London) has more freedom to invest into these AI start-ups and get their big payout when they grow large enough to move head office to the US.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 month ago

    Dunno about the UK, but the US is going guns blazing towards Robocops.

    Ironically, police probably think they’ll be in charge of the robots, rather than the robots replacing them.

  • ReCursing@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    All regulation of new technology is pointless because the law is written by people who don’t understand it. And by “new technology” I mean anything invented after the year 1900

    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      30 days ago

      Hell, I’ve written part of one of the regs under title 26. That should give you a clue how poorly put together the whole of it is.

  • it3agle@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    Starmer would be better off doing exactly the opposite of everything Trump does.

  • scripthook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ai regulation is a joke because the tech evolves faster than legislation. Esp when you have open source LLMs out there. Not to mention Meta pirating Terrabytes of textbooks to train their models