The authors of this article (a professor emeritus at NYU and a Canadian Member of Parliament) make a case for "controlled AI research", which is difficult to disagree with.

They neatly side-step the typical polemic extremes adopted by those who favour completely unregulated development on the one hand, and those who want all AI research suspended immediately on the other.

>>
Option one would be for the government to continue with the status quo. Leave technology companies to their own devices, trust them to sort themselves out without any more regulations, and hope they will learn to corral their AI and find better, less chaotic ways of rolling them out.

Option two is to take the opposite approach...and enact an outright ban on these new forms of AI.

But there is a third option, somewhere between these two poles, where government might allow for controlled AI research with a pause on large-scale AI deployment (e.g., open-ended chatbots rapidly rolled out to hundreds of millions of customers) until an effective framework that ensures AI safety is developed. 
>>

As a pragmatist, however, I don't really like the chances of achieving a global AI research (and deployment) framework. And in the absence of such a global agreement, the typical risks associated with unilateral behaviours remain: there will be actors who see an advantage in pursuing activities that others have agreed to pause, reduce or end.

#ai #research #technology #development #safety #trust #frameworks #globalization #regulation

https://lnkd.in/g8sSrApd