You’re missing the point if you’re arguing about my phrasing.

Like crypto?

The Trump administration recently published "America's AI Action Plan". One of the first policy actions from the document is to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change from the NIST's AI Risk Framework.

Lacking any sense of irony, the very next point states LLM developers should ensure their systems are "objective and free from top-down ideological bias".

Par for the course for Trump and his cronies, but the world should know what kind of AI the US wants to build.

No. You're dodging the argument. You chose to phrase it that way. And pretending that's just some incidental thing with no meaning honestly is about the dumbest response I've seen in a while.

You have made the argument that it is the American people, not the administration. You. Not anybody else.

Good luck enforcing open source AI.

The Trump administration recently published "America's AI Action Plan". One of the first policy actions from the document is to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change from the NIST's AI Risk Framework.

Lacking any sense of irony, the very next point states LLM developers should ensure their systems are "objective and free from top-down ideological bias".

Par for the course for Trump and his cronies, but the world should know what kind of AI the US wants to build.

I did not use the word "law". So you're arguing that EO's have no actual effect? That is blatantly false: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-dei-purge-is-hitting-nasa-hard/

I did not use the phrase "the American people".

Wow.

Just...wow.

You honestly think that's an argument?!?

Goodbye

Do you think that regulations have no effect on open source AI?

In this case? Yeah. There will always be someone with a copy of the code. They just spin up a new model and share it with the world. It's like The Pirate Bay. No matter how hard they try to destroy the site, it always comes back.

I did not use the word "law". So you're arguing that EO's have no actual effect? That is blatantly false: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-dei-purge-is-hitting-nasa-hard/

I think the bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN bill has and will have a substantial effect on the proliferation of open source deepfake models. Sure, a tech savvy individual will still be able to download a model themselves and do whatever, but it significantly different from having deepfake services readily available for millions to use. Is it absolute enforcement, no, but it has a substantial effect on the world.

I'm arguing that you're intentionally trying to play semantics with phrasing and claim it doesn't matter, when it absolutely does, and everyone in here is explaining to you why. That's all.

How did we get to talking about deepfakes? They're trying to stop honest discussions about misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change.

Based on your post history, I think we're on the same side. I understand that this administration does not represent all of America. Unfortunately though, the semantics of it all don't really matter. Trump got the majority vote, and that's what matters. The effects of his policies matter. From the perspective of the rest of the world, this is what (the majority of) America has chosen. I don't like it either.

Okay. My argument is that the semantics don't matter because what matters is policy.

Friend, seriously...listen to the very clear reason being used to explain the deficiency of your argument here.

The way you phrase something absolutely changes the meaning of its point. You can't say something and then try to justify that the ends are the same, so it's cool. Literally why people use the phrase "the ends don't justify the means".

If Trump comes out and says some dumb shit, you can't just say "AMERICA WANTS THIS", because that is obviously untrue.

It would work the same way with 4 people in a car, and the driver wants hamburgers. The entire car doesn't want hamburgers, just the driver of the car. How you want to argue the outcome or explanation of that very much decides on how you intend to phrase the situation. All you know right now is that the driver wants a hamburger, so it would disingenuous to say everyone wants hamburgers.

And since you did use the word "policy", I did mention that EO's aren't laws. It's a memo. He has no control via EOnof anyone except the people in his purview. Not private companies, not researches, not law, not state governments.

The Trump administration recently published "America's AI Action Plan". One of the first policy actions from the document is to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change from the NIST's AI Risk Framework.

Lacking any sense of irony, the very next point states LLM developers should ensure their systems are "objective and free from top-down ideological bias".

Par for the course for Trump and his cronies, but the world should know what kind of AI the US wants to build.