AI Hustle: News on Open AI, ChatGPT, Midjourney, NVIDIA, Anthropic, Open Source LLMs: US Senators Unveil Bipartisan AI Regulation Plan – What You Need to Know

Welcome to the OpenAI podcast, the podcast that opens up the world of AI in a quick and

concise manner.

Tune in daily to hear the latest news and breakthroughs in the rapidly evolving world

of artificial intelligence.

If you've been following the podcast for a while, you'll know that over the last six

months I've been working on a stealth AI startup.

Of the hundreds of projects I've covered, this is the one that I believe has the greatest

potential.

So today I'm excited to announce AIBOX.

AIBOX is a no-code AI app building platform paired with the App Store for AI that lets

you monetize your AI tools.

The platform lets you build apps by linking together AI models like chatGPT, mid-journey

and 11Labs, eventually will integrate with software like Gmail, Trello and Salesforce

so you can use AI to automate every function in your organization.

To get notified when we launch and be one of the first to build on the platform, you

can join the wait list at AIBOX.AI, the link is in the show notes.

We are currently raising a seed round of funding.

If you're an investor that is focused on disruptive tech, I'd love to tell you more

about the platform.

You can reach out to me at jaden at AIBOX.AI, I'll leave that email in the show notes.

So the first thing to say here is that, you know, of these senators who have proposed

government licensing for advanced AI development, this is a relatively bipartisan framework

which suggests there's going to be some stricter oversight of AI technologies like GPT-4.

There is of course, you know, a proposal by Senator Richard Bluthall, who's from Connecticut.

And then on the Republican side of this, we have Senator Josh Howley, who is from Montana.

So this, you know, this kind of bipartisan working together between Democrats or Republicans,

I think suggests the formation of a new governmental body that would require companies to seek

licenses before developing powerful AI models like GPT-4.

So the legislative framework also suggests that developing high risk applications such

as facial recognition should necessitate a government license.

Sure.

I mean, I guess I could be on board with the facial recognition thing.

I personally would hate to be walking around the streets and feel like companies, stores

or people are just like, everyone is just facial recognition, like recognizing me and

trying to, I don't know, target me for anything.

I just would prefer to feel slightly more anonymous.

So yeah, that I can get behind the rest of it.

I have a sneaking suspicion is going to be very, you know, opening out trying to build

a wall or remote.

So let's talk about some of the stringent requirements for AI development.

So the legislative framework which was presented on Tuesday proposed that companies would need

to subject their AI models to rigorous tests for potential harm before deployment, publicly

public disclosures of any indecent or incidents post launch and allow third party audits.

So this move could serve as a blueprint for future laws concerning AI regulation.

Companies would also be required to disclose the details of the training data used to create

these models.

And the proposal further allows individuals who are harmed by AI to take legal action

against the responsible companies.

I mean, maybe it's just me, but I don't like almost any of that.

Maybe that's just me.

So I'll, you know, I'll spare you my comments on that for the time being.

But let's talk about some of the mixed reactions from industry and advocacy groups.

So while the initiative has been welcomed by some, it has also been met with a lot of

skepticism and Lenhart, former leader of an AI ethics initiative at IBM appreciates the

lawmakers taking decisive action, but questions the feasibility of creating a body with a broad

range of expertise, because you really do need a lot of different expertise to kind

of oversee the whole AI, this AI technology that spans multiple sectors, right?

Like, I mean, we don't exactly have a great track record, we've, we've, we've decided

that Kamala Harris is the AI czar or whatever.

And she obviously is, you know, there's a whole meme going around of her explaining

that AI represents stands for artificial intelligence.

It's really cringy.

Um, obviously she's no technology background, no AI background.

So it makes absolutely no sense to have her over AI, but for some reason we decided to

do that.

Anyways, we don't have a great, great track record.

And I think that's what people are criticizing and concerned about.

They're like, if we just get a bunch of Kamala Harris's running the whole AI thing, like

it's going to be a, you know, bureaucratic nightmare pretty much.

So in any case, open AI CEO, Sam Altman had suggested a similar licensing mechanism during

a Senate testimony in May.

So that's another kind of red flag at the CEO of the biggest AI company with the most

funding of anyone else says that you should do the exact same licensing thing.

And he should definitely get a license cause he's the biggest AI company.

So it's like, it's kind of funny cause right now it's like, I don't feel like we need more

barriers to entry.

The barriers to entry are exhibit A, it's impossible to get these NVIDIA chips because

they're freaking expensive exhibit B, these NVIDIA chips are freaking expensive.

And like there's, there's a backlog if you want them and you have the money and if you

don't have the money, well, then you don't have the money.

So it's like, there's already a lot of barriers to entry to develop this technology.

It's really incredible technology, a lot of these different AI models that we're building,

but like adding a government license on top of that, it's like, great.

So now you need to know a lobbyist, a bureaucrat, you need to know a way to get through the

system or like it's just going to be a debacle.

I highly doubt this is going to be like a very simple thing.

Is it going to get politicized where certain political parties only want models that conform

to their ideologies?

Yeti, Yeti, Yeti.

And I know it's like bipartisan cause we got a Democrat and a Republican working on

it, but that's just like, I'm skeptical.

And whether you're a Republican or whether you're a Democrat, I think you should be

skeptical because inevitably if, you know, someone from the other party than your own

is elected president, then they could, you know, set the new person in charge of that

department to have things that like are skewed towards them.

I don't know.

Whatever.

Maybe I'm pessimistic on this whole thing or just like overly suspicious, but it just

doesn't seem to be what I love having the government decide who can build an AI model

when, you know, right now everyone's building them and we're all still alive.

The robots have not taken over yet.

So looking at some of the, you know, like looking at some of the pending decisions and

questions, I think the senators have yet to specify whether the oversight for AI tech

would be conducted by a newly formed federal agency or an existing one.

They've also not outlined the criteria for determining whether like what could be classified

as high risk applications requiring a license.

So that's I'm sure annoying if you got labeled as high risk for whatever reason, that will

be a good way to weaponize it against your political or ideological opponents.

But in any case, I think the proposal comes at a time when AI regulation is a hot topic

in Washington.

Senators are talking about this a lot.

I think Bluefell and Hawley are scheduled to oversee a Senate subcommittee hearing on

AI accountability next week.

And I think that a meeting hosted by Senator Chuck Schumer will gather a bunch of tech

leaders like Mark Zuckerberg, Elon and CEOs from Google, Microsoft and Nvidia to discuss

the future of AI regulation.

So Michael Kuhu, who is of friends on the earth and environmental nonprofit calls the

proposal a quote, good first step, but demands more clarity on the framework's details and

its potential environmental impacts.

Again, I don't really love the mixing of environmental people with AI technology or like it'd be,

I would just as much like the CEO of ExxonMobil, a gas company, like being having comments

or an opinion on this AI technology as I would an environmental person or as I would the

NRA.

Like it just already feels like people are trying to politicize this and, you know, say

like, Oh, well, all of these different people from these different departments or these

different like groups need to have a say on AI and, you know, their opinions matter.

Don't like it.

Don't like it one bit.

I just like the AI is awesome.

I think people should be able to use it how they want.

I don't want to get politicized, but inevitably it will.

So I guess I just got a brace for impact on that.

The proposal by Senator Blumenthal and Holly Marks, I think a significant step towards

a more structured regulation of AI technologies in the U.S. However, it has elicited varying

reactions and several questions still remain unanswered with upcoming hearings and meetings

on the subject.

I think the discussion on how best to regulate AI is far from over.

So stay tuned as we continue to cover this in the future and see how this all shakes

out.

If you are looking for an innovative and creative community of people using chat GPT, you need

to join our chat GPT creators community.

I'll drop a link in the description to this podcast.

We'd love to see you there where we share tips and tricks of what is working in chat

GPT.

It's a lot easier than a podcast as you can see screenshots, you can share and comment

on things that are currently working.

So if this sounds interesting to you, check out the link in the comment.

We'd love to have you in the community.

Thanks for joining me on the open AI podcast.

It would mean the world to me if you would rate this podcast wherever you listen to your

podcasts and I'll see you tomorrow.

Machine-generated transcript that may contain inaccuracies.