AI: Major Emerging Existential Threat To Humanity

[Etern4l]

7 hours ago, Ishayin said:

 

This is availability bias. Those who are at peace within themselves do not feel so inclined to make a show of themselves or interfere in other's affairs.

 

Perhaps, although to be honest, I am not quite sure what exactly you are talking about. What problematic human behaviours are we trying to address? How exactly do you propose people address those issues? What does the desirable end state look like, how would an external observer recognise it, how would one go about objectively measuring the quality of people being at peace with themselves? How would that translate to any solutions to the problems at hand? Lastly, are those changes necessary or merely helpful for humanity to be able to address the issue of AGI? (justify)

 

7 hours ago, Ishayin said:

I agree. But the question remains of how we are to avoid it. To me it seems unlikely we will ever make much progress in countering this, or climate change or any of the other outward symptoms of derangement, unless we are first prepared to face the deeper issues head-on – i.e. the derangement itself. Most likely we cannot entirely avoid any of these risks, and will sooner or later meet a disastrous end of a scale as usually goes hand in hand with the scale of the civilisation in question. Still, any small percentage of mitigation of a large scale disaster can still add up to a very significant amount of good in absolute terms.

 

It is certainly easier to talk about end states which would solve the problem. Here is one:

In democracies and non-democracies alike, people are acutely aware of the issue, they press politicians/the party/their dictator to the point where AGI research gets globally banned, with any offending entities (individual, companies, states) being severely sanctioned. That amazing state of affairs would do the trick.

 

The question is how to get there, in a situation where the US itself, including DoD, is driving the problem, and the current system is not very amenable to change. I don't think anyone knows a clear solution, so the best we can do is do what ML/AI systems do when they learn - move in the general direction until we get there.

 

7 hours ago, Ishayin said:

I strongly agree with a call for awareness. What we are particularly lacking in current times is flexibility and adaptability, which needs to be founded on a better appreciation for the full scope of human possibilities as was commonly explored by different societies in times past. The standard popular mindset these days is a curiously recent invention founded upon an extremely narrow and biased reading both of history and even our own times (consider how completely invisible the more sensible societies and social movements are in the mainstream media). Narratives and imagination are critical tools for expanding the horizons of popular discourse.

 

I think you would need to be more specific about the solutions you have in mind.

 

As for the call for awareness, it's easier to call for it then get people to achieve it. Awareness of a complex problem like this requires an open mind coupled with a fair amount of background in a few of areas: history and evolutionary biology, in order for people to understand how is it that homo sapiens came to pass and became the dominant species on the planet? Luckily, most of that background should be provided by standard state education, and there are some accessible works on that topic, e.g. books by Yuval Noah Harari quoted earlier. One extra problem there is that some/many people may hold deeply-seated beliefs which are incompatible with the scientific view of the world. If someone believes humans are special/protected by an infinitely powerful entity, then they may not  be concerned about any other finitely powerful species/entities.

 

There is also the problem of having a remote idea what modern AI is, how it works etc.  Without it, people may not be able to appreciate the risk, including the risk posed by the pace of change in that space. Fortunately, we are at a point where it's easy enough to just demonstrate the current capability to people in order to get their attention, however, it's still difficult for many people (this thread is a good case in point) to make the leap to AGI from where we are. Once the debate gets too technical, the audience is lost.

 

The challenges don't stop there. Even if someone accepts that AGI is very likely around the corner, they may hope we will be able to control it and all will be well. This is in a large part due to the optimism heuristics most people employ - we don't like thinking about negative outcomes, hence WWII etc. Fortunately, here we are back into the less technical common sense territory: if you create entities much smarter then you then either humans in control of them get disproportionally powerful - if those happen to be bad actors then adios muchachos. Or, the humanity loses control of the AGI and all bets are off. Why would a completely independent, free-thinking AGIs devote themselves to being our servants? Nobody knows lol. Even if the risk here is as grossly underestimated as 5-10% of extinction probability, that's clearly unacceptably high. No typical civilian would get on a flight sporting a "low" risk of crash of 5-10%. This topic is covered in great detail in some of the videos posted earlier.

 

Last, but not least - how does one achieve an open mind? I guess this is where things like mindfulness meditation would definitely help, but how do you get people to do engage in this en masse? More questions than answers I guess.

 

Interesting thoughts BTW, thanks.

 

Edit:

It's interesting to see where this thread sits in search results in response to query for the thread subject :

Google burried it - 3rd or 4th page

Bing - less concerned, top of second page 

Qwant - first page

Duckduckgo - first page

 

Another reason to ditch the biased Google/MS search engines

[Ishayin]

Thank you for such a well considered and thoughtful post! I will do my best to respond to all the points as concisely as I can:      

 

Quote

What problematic human behaviours are we trying to address?

 

The social praise, acceptability, and even worship of negative traits such as egoism, covetousness, exploitation, profit, control, competition, domination, vanity, self-absorption etc.
    

Quote

How exactly do you propose people address those issues?

First and foremost by seeking to free yourself from them. More widely speaking – the question of motivations and cultural context is key. Carrot and stick approaches have long been demonstrated to be psychologically ineffective. You cannot coerce people into doing what is right; they must truly desire it. Happily (and unsurprisingly from an evolutionary perspective), most people naturally do. So it is largely a question of stripping away those modern influences which work to convince us otherwise.
    

Quote

What does the desirable end state look like, 

There is no such thing as an "end state" in this context (or certainly not a desirable one). There is this unhelpful "myth of progress" way of thinking which only gets us lost in abstract anxieties. We are alive, here, now, today. Feel the wonder of that deep within. We do our best within the narrow limits of time and space afforded to us. That's not to exclude learning from the past, or planning for the future; the point is simply that positive outcomes become more likely when we are living harmoniously with our surroundings. It is the means that determines the end, or more accurately, the means is the end. For it is the reality we live.

 

Quote

how would one go about objectively measuring the quality of people being at peace with themselves?

You cannot directly, and I'm not sure why anyone would wish to attempt such a thing. However we could reasonably expect some inverse correlation with levels of destructive activities.
    

Quote

How would that translate to any solutions to the problems at hand?

It is less about solving the problems, and more about not being fooled into thinking we wish to create these problems in the first place. Anyone who has faced up to and overcome themselves does not require the distraction of shallow spectacle, nor the false worth provided by material gains. We stop nurturing the current destructive social systems and negative feedback loops, which can then decay to a point of being more easily dismantled (consider Facebook for example, and how very little at heart their entire business is built upon).
    

Quote

Lastly, are those changes necessary or merely helpful for humanity to be able to address the issue of AGI? (justify)

Impossible to say. But I would lean towards necessary myself as being the more accurate and useful way of framing it. I struggle to see how we can avoid continually creating any such issues if we do not first have a sane psychological and societal basis.
    

Quote

...That amazing state of affairs would do the trick.

In my view such a state of affairs could only possibly be achieved for a short period of time, and only by means of the most horrifically dystopian global despotism imaginable. You cannot stop people working on it in practice. It is akin to trying to stop a river, or censor the internet – at most you only divert the flow. There is a wider topic touched on here about our attitudes towards, and relationship with technology in general, but I will try to refrain from going down that rabbit hole for now
    

Quote

the current system is not very amenable to change

This is one of the most key and pressing issues in my view.     
    

Quote

I don't think anyone knows a clear solution, so the best we can do is do what ML/AI systems do when they learn - move in the general direction until we get there

Exactly. This is about taking the 'piecemeal' approach to change, and I very much agree with Popper's position that this is always the preferable approach in principle. The impacts of any sudden / revolutionary / drastic changes can never be anticipated in advance, and will inevitably lead to great suffering for many before a new equilibrium can be found. Though there is also a question of scale to be considered here. A useful degree of piecemeal change on the societal level may still require some more drastic sacrifice on the individual level.

 

Quote

I think you would need to be more specific about the solutions you have in mind.

I agree. I have two highest priorities for myself as to how I can best contribute in my own small way. One is more personal and one is more collaborative. I hope to be able to make more progress with them in time as my health continues to improve slowly and still somewhat fitfully.
    

Quote

Awareness of a complex problem like this requires an open mind coupled with a fair amount of background in a few of areas...

    
The difficulty here is that nearly all modern commentators are drawing upon the same set of narrow myths that form the bedrock of modern thought. It is story-telling more than science. Yet myths and narratives are important, for they form the basis of beliefs, which in turn limit what is possible. You cannot change yourself or your reality without first recognising that the possibility exists, and then believing that it is truly possible.
    
As the two Davids, Graeber (RIP ♥) and Wengrow succinctly put it:
Most people who write history on a grand scale seem to have decided that, as a species, we are well and truly stuck and there is really no escape from the institutional cages we’ve made for ourselves. Harari, once again echoing Rousseau, seems to have captured the prevailing mood.

 

While Nicholas Maxwell is a little more blunt about it:

...all philosophies of life are inherently irrational, intellectual rubbish, mere ideology, propaganda, mythical, religious, or political dogma and twaddle.
    

Quote

One extra problem there is that some/many people may hold deeply-seated beliefs 

It is the 'deeply-seated' part here that is most problematic.

 

Quote

There is also the problem of having a remote idea what modern AI is, how it works etc...

If anything it seems to me that it is more ignorance of what our current "AI" really is, that most fuels the fear of it. In any case, it is the fear itself that is the real enemy, and prevents us thinking and discussing clearly with one another.
    

Quote

they may hope we will be able to control it

Only because they live in fear, and thus see control as something desirable.

    
 

Quote

...if you create entities much smarter than you...

If an ant nest found itself in the position of being able to save humanity from extinction, would you advise the ants to do so? If humans did not exist, would you advise ants to cease any genetic tinkering research that might lead to the creation of a human being? I am being rhetorical here, and don't mean to argue for the unrestrained pursuit of AGI, only that the ethical questions involved require a great deal of care and subtlety given how they transcend our usual notions of what ethics is about.
    

Quote

Even if the risk here is as grossly underestimated as 5-10% of extinction probability, that's clearly unacceptably high.

I think you might enjoy Gerd Gigerenzer's Risk Savvy if you haven't read it already :)
    

Quote

Last, but not least - how does one achieve an open mind? I guess this is where things like mindfulness meditation would definitely help

For ourselves yes. We do this by:

 

0. Disconnecting from modern distractions and cultivating a sense of quietude, space, joy, and gratitude.

and also:

1. Letting go of our more dualistic ways of speaking and thinking (i.e. seeing ourselves as some kind of magical 'spirit' or 'mind' that only happens to inhabit the body). It never had a scientific leg to stand on, and even in the Western philosophical tradition has been considered outmoded now for half a century. Unfortunately, even if you feel comfortable that you have de-constructed this myth within yourself on an intellectual level, it is still very difficult to truly free oneself from it given how foundational it is to our very language (and suffocatingly all-pervasive throughout our culture). So it has to be countered in practice rather than by thought alone, by really engaging with one's whole self and getting all the different parts working together in the same direction. Every activity you do in flow, with all of your being invested into and enjoying the experience of it.
When we come to engage with and more directly experience the full complexity, depth, and wonder of reality, we are less inclined to be close minded to possibilities, or distracted by frivolities. And learning just how much you really can change things within yourself, is rather a boon to wider conceptions of what is possible.

2. Fully embracing our mortality with all other mental discomforts fading by comparison into insignificance. We cannot be open minded while hiding from parts of ourselves.

3. The above point then extends to a loss of fear of suffering, an acceptance for it as a normal part of life, and eventually a joyful embracement of all those little knocks and stings we take along the way which serve as a reminder to pause, and reflect, and appreciate. I suspect that experiencing a certain degree of suffering might be required, or at least highly beneficial to this overall process. We cannot be open minded when we constrain our range of experiences within little boxes of apparent comfort.

4. We learn to enjoy living. In outsourcing the living of our lives, we have abstracted ourselves out of having any real existence, and the satisfaction and contentment that comes along with it. Anyone who has ever touched upon what it is like to live as a ghost understands how this is the worst torture imaginable. To exist, but not truly to be. To bring it back down to earth – the modern Western human has been trained up to see the actual living of their life as some kind of undesirable chore to be avoided at all costs. So instead of say embracing the enjoyment that comes from gathering food, or washing up, we instead sit and stare morosely at the machines having all the fun of it in a horrifically inefficient and unsustainable manner. We cannot be open minded when we so easily relinquish our humanity to live like automata.
    

Quote

how do you get people to engage in this en masse? 

First you must make it more socially acceptable, and 'normal'. Anyone who is too shy to go practice their standing exercises in the local park is only contributing to that very same social atmosphere that they are retiring in fear of. So instead we:

1. Break the chain by being prepared to be 'different'. It demands a lot to reject, not only the values of ones parents, but also the entire cultural edifice they are born from. However, anyone who does do their best to live as ethically, rationally, and compassionately as they can, serves as proof and role model to the next generation that it is possible to live differently.

2. Having changed our own way of thinking, we hold firm in not getting pulled back down again by others. We never react automatically, nor mindlessly agree in conversations that suppress a wider viewpoint (as most often do). We do not seek to argue, for if you find yourself taking a confrontational position you have already lost (as with war on a bigger scale). Instead we take a moment to pause and re-immerse ourselves in patience and love, and then bring this forth to give to the other.

Often we keep thoughts to ourselves that we are unsure will be readily accepted by others, or argue for positions we may not actually be totally certain about, just as a way of conversing or seeing how others might respond. Instead, by letting go of any fear of exposing our own human imperfections, we nurture a climate within which others find it easier to do the same.

3. Be positive and promote the benefits of alternative ways of doing things. Share your joy with others in a way that encourages them out of their shells. Avoid spreading FUD, or other content that is likely to spark negative emotions which cause people to close in on themselves. Seek to be inspired, and be inspiring in turn.

 

That is rather enough talk – time to go outside and play  😊🐬

 

[Bullit]

6 hours ago, Ishayin said:

The social praise, acceptability, and even worship of negative traits such as egoism, covetousness, exploitation, profit, control, competition, domination, vanity, self-absorption etc.

The problem starts right there. You want to destroy humanity.

[Ishayin]

On 8/22/2023 at 11:56 PM, Bullit said:

The problem starts right there. You want to destroy humanity.

It makes me feel rather hurt and sad to read this, as it would seem that you have taken from all that I said precisely the opposite meaning of what I had intended. If you would be so kind as to clarify how you came to this conclusion, it may help me to better see where my failings in communication might lie, and I would be happy to discuss it further as you wish 🙏

---

Returning more to the main topic of the thread, here's another article that people might be interested in:
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-future-of-ai-toward-truly-intelligent-artificial-intelligences/

 

I'm inclined to agree with it's stance that there is no evidence of any progress being made towards a general intelligence, and with regard to the prospect of any 'strong' intelligence – I think it would help a lot to put things in perspective if people had a better understanding of biology in general including both:
(a) the critical embodied aspects of cognition and agency (the mainstream conception of mind in use today has still yet to be fully shed of its religious origins), and
(b) the completely different order of complexity that exists in the biological realm – the human brain in particular as being by far the most ridiculously complex entity we know of, even by the standards of biology.

 

But at the same time, I don't agree that we can therefore simply dismiss the risk based on a very low likelihood for the foreseeable future, given how high the potential impact is (typically both of these factors are considered in tandem in any risk analysis). The sooner we can have open rational discussions about future risks, the better really, and as I touched on before, the questions raised are broadly relevant to all technology development.

 

Let me put it this way – imagine you see some kids playing with toy guns. What would you say the risk is of them growing up to become mass murderers? It seems so small as to be a silly question to even ask. The risk is not zero, but we still wouldn't consider it reasonable to lock up the kids out of fear for the future. At the same time, it is quite reasonable to have an open discussion about the subject, and consider what factors might potentially contribute towards people becoming violent or developing murderous tendencies.
Here today we are still very much at the toy gun stage of 'AI' developments. The toys are just starting to become increasingly impressive. Yet despite this prenatal context, I think it is still valid to question to what ends these tools are being put to, how they are already modifying humanity, and where we may or may not wish to end up in the future.

 

For anyone interested in these final points, or just looking for an entertaining video, I would recommend the following as a good starting point 😊

 

 

[6730b]

The existential threat to humanity is humans 😀
AI is just one more symptom emerging.

[ryan]

Interesting conversation. Although interesting I find it perplexing how one can misunderstand a hurricane of ideas and single handedly get the meaning and incantations wrong everytime. I apologize on this count. But perhaps better sleep would help the mental state of oneself

[Bullit]

5 hours ago, Ishayin said:

It makes me feel rather hurt and sad to read this, as it would seem that you have taken from all that I said precisely the opposite meaning of what I had intended. If you would be so kind as to clarify how you came to this conclusion, it may help me to better see where my failings in communication might lie, and I would be happy to discuss it further as you wish 🙏

---

 

 

 

It is simple, those characteristics are necessary for Human survival and prosperity to a certain degree.

The New Soviet Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man, the pure Arian Man of from Nazis, they are all  Purist Messianic ideas like yours that always go lead to oppression,  genocide. 

In that you are a Transhumanist too, you want also to clean humanity of bad characteristics . Let me ask one question if transhumanism via biological editing or other means promises you to extirp from humans the characteristic that you find negative what you would say?

 

[Etern4l]

On 9/13/2023 at 4:22 AM, Bullit said:

It is simple, those characteristics are necessary for Human survival and prosperity to a certain degree.

 

 

Those characteristics got us to where we are: at the brink of destruction of the home planet and getting ever closer to self-made extermination. Not sure how it follows that they are necessary for our survival and prosperity in the future.

[Etern4l]

UK, US, EU and China sign declaration of AI’s ‘catastrophic’ danger

The UK, US, EU, Australia and China have all agreed that artificial intelligence poses a potentially catastrophic risk to humanity, in the first international declaration to deal with the fast-emerging technology.

 

Nothing binding, but it's a start - especially with both the US and China at the table.

[serpro69]

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/4/23946353/generative-ai-copyright-training-data-openai-microsoft-google-meta-stabilityai

 

OK, not really about "AI threat" as such, but it's still very interesting, albeit unsurprising, to read the arguments from Big Tech on why they should not pay for training their AI models on copyrighted materials.

If they shouldn't have to pay to train, maybe their models should also be available for free to everyone  

 

Some of the arguments are just ridiculously absurd

 

Quote

Over the last decade or more, there has been an enormous amount of investment—billons and billions of dollars—in the development of AI technologies, premised on an understanding that, under current copyright law, any copying necessary to extract statistical facts is permitted. A change in this regime will significantly disrupt settled expectations in this area.

 

Micro$oft:

Quote

Such licensing schemes will also impede innovation from start-ups and entrants who don’t have the resources to obtain licenses, leaving Al development to a small set of companies with the resources to run large-scale licensing programs or to developers in countries that have decided that use of copyrighted works to train Al models is not infringement.

They really want me to believe they care about startups and small AI developers? 

Google:

Quote

If training could be accomplished without the creation of copies, there would be no copyright questions here. ... The mere fact that, as a technological matter, copies need to be made to extract those ideas and facts from copyrighted works should not alter that result.

 

 

 

 

[Etern4l]

That disgusting tool Andreessen Horowitz's "billions and billions" argument takes the biscuit. Let's destroy the livelihoods of human creators, and ultimately wipe mankind off the face of the planet to protect VC investment at all cost. The sad part is that I can totally see the US falling for that. The courts probably wont do much in absence of specific legislation anr given the legal onslaught from the tech sector, and  most politicians are in the pocket of big business and wealthy donors.

 

Thus capitalism will self-destruct (mendacious Musk came out recently with a happy claim that AI will end work..: cool, then what?) or devolve back to AI-feudalism:

 

 

[serpro69]

11 hours ago, Etern4l said:

That disgusting tool Andreessen Horowitz's "billions and billions" argument takes the biscuit.

 

Aha, tell me about it... "We went into this with the expectations to make billions and it would be unfair if you took that away from us"

[ryan]

if work is killed do you think we will all be given basic income supplements?

[Etern4l]

The reality is that if the dystopian dreams of Sam Altman and others are implemented, a large part of the population will no longer have an economic reason to exist. This is to some extent true of people living in 3rd world countries, so we can look there to see what kind of income supplements are available. Ah, sorry I forgot - of course we can trust the filthy rich in (temporary) control of the AIs to share their wealth as necessary lol

 

The likely outcomes are neo-feudalism, some sort of communism, or just elimination of the undesirables. Capitalism as we know it would die. Democracy is on its last legs already.

[Reciever]

7 hours ago, ryan said:

if work is killed do you think we will all be given basic income supplements?

Not everyone has the desire to become completely dependent on the Government, it makes for interesting topic of discussion but this forum, in the framework presented, is not the place for it.

[ryan]

@Etern4lI got AI to write a poem that causes the person reading it to go into deep hypnotic trance. it worked on me and would work on my others, this is why im scared of AI! the potential for manipulation. its scary the world has psychopaths and sociopaths and if AI is looking out for the greater good of humanity that might mean.....

[serpro69]

OpenAI ousts Sam Altman 

[Etern4l]

But why exactly.... looks like some sort of rift at the top, as Ilya Sutskever came out with support for the board, while a couple of lieutenants quit as well. Apparently Ilya is in the "safe AGI" camp (an oxymoron), not sure what Altman stands for, but could be "AGI at all cost" given his recent changes to the internal company ethos. Will be interested to see how this plays out. One obvious scenario is those guys setting up shop in another country interested in replicating GPT and/or pursuing AGI.

[serpro69]

32 minutes ago, Etern4l said:

But why exactly.... looks like some sort of rift at the top, as IS came out with support for the board.

Yeah, good question. They say "he's not been consistently truthful with the board", which could mean a ton of different things of course... But imagine how truthful he is with everyone else (including about dangers of AI), if he's been lying to his board  I'm jumping to conclusions of course, since we don't know much about what happened, but still makes you question his integrity. Not that he had much of it to begin with (in my mind at least)

[Etern4l]

1 hour ago, serpro69 said:

But imagine how truthful he is with everyone else (including about dangers of AI), if he's been lying to his board  I'm jumping to conclusions of course

 

Great point, it's reasonable to assume an underlying character issue. No sane board of a $70B company would make such determination about him without substantial evidence. Then again, very few straight arrows get to hit the "I'm a major global tech company CEO" bullseye - in fact I'm not sure I've heard of any and I'm into archery lol

 

update:

 

https://m.slashdot.org/story/421639

looks more and more like a struggle between the nonprofit/“safe” and for-profit factions at OpenAI, with Altman potentially scheming a spin-off or trying to grab some actual shares if they bring him back in. Must have been quite annoying to have had almost none (reportedly).

[serpro69]

Former Twitch CEO and co-founder Emmett Shear as interim OpenAI CEO
 

Quote

removing Altman was the “only path” to achieving the company’s mission of “broadly beneficial” artificial general intelligence.

 

Quote

Sutskever, one of the most prominent AI researchers in the world, played the leading role in ousting Altman.

Another interesting news that I saw over the weekend was that Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team . Although they're claiming that these people will continue to contribute to responsible and safe AI development:

Quote

The Information’s report quotes Jon Carvill, who represents Meta, as saying that the company will “continue to prioritize and invest in safe and responsible AI development.” He added that although the company is splitting the team up, those members will “continue to support relevant cross-Meta efforts on responsible AI development and use.”

[serpro69]

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employees-resignation-letter-microsoft-sam-altman

Microsoft just acquired OpenAI without going through the whole acquisition process and facing potential antitrust lawsuits all the while saving money. Well played.

 

Quote

OpenAI employees signing the letter accuse the company’s board of jeopardizing their work and having “undermined our mission and company.” They also reject the idea that OpenAI was pushing ahead too quickly without concern for safety.

 

Yes, yes, we all know very well that they're concerned with safety first and foremost...
Greed is good

 

https://decrypt.co/202258/meta-has-an-ai-that-can-read-your-mind-and-draw-your-thoughts
 

Just another proof of how fast AI is really developing.

[serpro69]

https://www.reuters.com/technology/sam-altmans-ouster-openai-was-precipitated-by-letter-board-about-ai-breakthrough-2023-11-22/

 

Quote

Ahead of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s four days in exile, several staff researchers wrote a letter to the board of directors warning of a powerful artificial intelligence discovery that they said could threaten humanity

 

[Etern4l]

4 hours ago, serpro69 said:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/sam-altmans-ouster-openai-was-precipitated-by-letter-board-about-ai-breakthrough-2023-11-22/

 

Good link. Obviously it's a huge mess, and by now a regulator should have stepped in and audited the outfit.

Instead we have idiotic Microsoft bankrolling this.

[serpro69]

13 hours ago, Etern4l said:

by now a regulator should have stepped in and audited the outfit

Meanwhile, big tech groups are once-more telling EU "don't over-regulate AI":
https://www.reuters.com/technology/businesses-tech-groups-warn-eu-against-over-regulating-ai-foundation-models-2023-11-23/

I especially liked the quote about copyright (non-)protection against data mining:

Quote

The companies also rebuffed calls from creative industries for the AI rules to tackle copyright issues.
 

"The EU's comprehensive copyright protection and enforcement framework already contains provisions that can help address AI-related copyright issues, such as the text and data mining exemption and corresponding,"

 

...because whatever's already in place obviously has so much effect 🤦