<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>bassrattle</author><text>It comes down to life. Murder takes a life. Slavery takes someone&amp;#x27;s life too. Theft&amp;#x2F;fraud is taking life in the sense of time&amp;#x2F;effort spent toward the stolen material. We already have these prohibitions. We don&amp;#x27;t need new ones for every imaginable method of murder, slavery or theft.</text><parent_chain><item><author>RandomLensman</author><text>Why have any prohibitions on anything then? Will only help outlaws and criminals, no? Outlawing slavery, for example, only working against good people who commit sins of omission?</text></item><item><author>motohagiography</author><text>AI model rules will be as successful as any other prohibition, where outlaws will act with defacto impunity, while good people who commit sins of omission will be made arbitrary examples of. I&amp;#x27;m sure there&amp;#x27;s a name for the dynamic, where policing rules of any kind are mainly enforced against people who generally abide by them, while simulataneously giving a huge arbitrage advantage to people who ignore them or are just outlaws.&lt;p&gt;There is another problem that doesn&amp;#x27;t have any good solutions yet that will be a huge part of AI governance, and that&amp;#x27;s software attestation (direct anonymous attestation). The basic problem is how does a program assert that it is an authentic instance of itself. We&amp;#x27;ve been trying to solve it in security for apps, authenticators, and DRM for decades, and the solutions all seem fine until it&amp;#x27;s worth it to someone break it. I think it&amp;#x27;s probably just a poorly formed problem statement that defines itself in impossible terms, but when they can&amp;#x27;t govern AI models, they&amp;#x27;re going to try to govern which AI&amp;#x27;s can access what data and systems, and we&amp;#x27;re back to solving the same old cryptographic problems we&amp;#x27;ve been working on for decades.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>AI model weight providers should not police uses, no matter how awful they are</title><url>http://marble.onl/posts/model_censorship.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>vorpalhex</author><text>The question is enforcement.&lt;p&gt;Can you enforce, whether by force or by norm, the act?&lt;p&gt;Enforcement of marijuana prohibition, and before that alcohol prohibition, were failures.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, ending slavery was very enforceable.&lt;p&gt;Enforcing AI uses is extremely difficult. Bad actors act with impunity and only the stupidly innocent suffer from the enforcement.</text><parent_chain><item><author>RandomLensman</author><text>Why have any prohibitions on anything then? Will only help outlaws and criminals, no? Outlawing slavery, for example, only working against good people who commit sins of omission?</text></item><item><author>motohagiography</author><text>AI model rules will be as successful as any other prohibition, where outlaws will act with defacto impunity, while good people who commit sins of omission will be made arbitrary examples of. I&amp;#x27;m sure there&amp;#x27;s a name for the dynamic, where policing rules of any kind are mainly enforced against people who generally abide by them, while simulataneously giving a huge arbitrage advantage to people who ignore them or are just outlaws.&lt;p&gt;There is another problem that doesn&amp;#x27;t have any good solutions yet that will be a huge part of AI governance, and that&amp;#x27;s software attestation (direct anonymous attestation). The basic problem is how does a program assert that it is an authentic instance of itself. We&amp;#x27;ve been trying to solve it in security for apps, authenticators, and DRM for decades, and the solutions all seem fine until it&amp;#x27;s worth it to someone break it. I think it&amp;#x27;s probably just a poorly formed problem statement that defines itself in impossible terms, but when they can&amp;#x27;t govern AI models, they&amp;#x27;re going to try to govern which AI&amp;#x27;s can access what data and systems, and we&amp;#x27;re back to solving the same old cryptographic problems we&amp;#x27;ve been working on for decades.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>AI model weight providers should not police uses, no matter how awful they are</title><url>http://marble.onl/posts/model_censorship.html</url></story>