The collaboration can bring faster innovation, better public services & enhanced national security. But it can also create challenges, such as ethical dilemmas, regulatory gaps and social inequalities
Very good - I've made similar observations and posted about it, but didn't have the bots check my work ... I think the only thing missing is what are others doing about it? The main problem facing the government is only the conflicted are engaged, particularly by investing. It doesn't require much investment in good alts for more responsible and safe AI, but it does require some. The complacent approach by most orgs is feeding the problem.
Not sure what you mean - as in other than big tech? Well, not really if you look at investments. What I meant is others who are independent and not part of the same syndicates. I know many of the leading AI scientists, quite a few of whom only accepted money their investors because no one else would invest. For example, I belong to a group of scientists focused on neurosymbolic AI - last time I looked there were over 500 members, about half of whom are tenured professors, but very little money is being invested despite neurosymbolic being much superior than LLMs for security, safety, and protection of IP. Our synthetic genius machine (SGM) was the first and probably influenced the reckless manner LLM bots were unleashed. Bottom line is it doesn't do any good to complain without taking effective action. There are independents out there like KYield, and we sacrificed a lot to keep our systems independent and free from such conflicts. It's strategically self-destructive for most not to partner with independents like mine, hence my comment about complacency. Actions are what matters.
I was referring to your line ‘ I think the only thing missing is what are others doing about it?’ and indicating that if that relates to the issues flagged than there is no one left to expect anything meaningful from…until some of the anticipated issues have manifested themselves I guess 😉
Very familiar with this - hence complacency. That's not what leaders do -- they lead and take proactive action, prevent catastrophes by competing. I'll be spending a lot more time on strategic behavior in AI by corporate leaders -- about 90% are failing in strategic engagement with AI technology, and just sitting back and taking what big tech hands them, which is to no surprise strategic to big tech, not customers. The scale ceiling requires them to consume customers to continue to grow.
Very good - I've made similar observations and posted about it, but didn't have the bots check my work ... I think the only thing missing is what are others doing about it? The main problem facing the government is only the conflicted are engaged, particularly by investing. It doesn't require much investment in good alts for more responsible and safe AI, but it does require some. The complacent approach by most orgs is feeding the problem.
I’m afraid these ARE ‘the others’…
Not sure what you mean - as in other than big tech? Well, not really if you look at investments. What I meant is others who are independent and not part of the same syndicates. I know many of the leading AI scientists, quite a few of whom only accepted money their investors because no one else would invest. For example, I belong to a group of scientists focused on neurosymbolic AI - last time I looked there were over 500 members, about half of whom are tenured professors, but very little money is being invested despite neurosymbolic being much superior than LLMs for security, safety, and protection of IP. Our synthetic genius machine (SGM) was the first and probably influenced the reckless manner LLM bots were unleashed. Bottom line is it doesn't do any good to complain without taking effective action. There are independents out there like KYield, and we sacrificed a lot to keep our systems independent and free from such conflicts. It's strategically self-destructive for most not to partner with independents like mine, hence my comment about complacency. Actions are what matters.
I was referring to your line ‘ I think the only thing missing is what are others doing about it?’ and indicating that if that relates to the issues flagged than there is no one left to expect anything meaningful from…until some of the anticipated issues have manifested themselves I guess 😉
Very familiar with this - hence complacency. That's not what leaders do -- they lead and take proactive action, prevent catastrophes by competing. I'll be spending a lot more time on strategic behavior in AI by corporate leaders -- about 90% are failing in strategic engagement with AI technology, and just sitting back and taking what big tech hands them, which is to no surprise strategic to big tech, not customers. The scale ceiling requires them to consume customers to continue to grow.