Technology

42839 readers

207 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

remington@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

The GUARD Act Isn’t Targeting Dangerous AI—It’s Blocking Everyday Internet Use (www.eff.org)

submitted 1 day ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Lawmakers in Congress are moving quickly on the GUARD Act, an age-gating bill restricting minors’ access to a wide range of online tools, with a key vote expected this week. The proposal is framed as a response to alarming cases involving “AI companions” and vulnerable young users. But the text of the bill goes much further, and could require age gates even for search engines that use AI.

If enacted, the GUARD Act won’t just target a narrow category of risky chatbots. It would require companies to verify the age of every user — then block anyone under 18 from interacting with a huge range of online systems. It would block minors from everyday online tools, undermine parental guidance, and force adults to sacrifice their privacy. In the process, it would require services to implement speech-restricting and privacy-invasive age-verification systems for everyone—not just kids.

Under the GUARD Act’s broad definitions, a high school student could be barred from asking homework help tools questions about algebra problems. A teenager trying to return a product could be kicked out of a standard customer-service chat.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LukeZaz@beehaw.org 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (3 children)

On one hand, that "everyday use" of AI is genuinely some of the most harmful use there is. People fall into delusions because of that shit, and even when they don't they get massively overconfident about the answers they get, even despite significant error rates. Not to mention the privacy invasion that occurs with those systems, or the, you know, huge environmental damage.

In particular, this paragraph is doing a lot to make the bill sound better:

Under the GUARD Act’s broad definitions, a high school student could be barred from asking homework help tools questions about algebra problems. A teenager trying to return a product could be kicked out of a standard customer-service chat.

Yeah. These tools are dangerous. Fucking adults are using them wildly irresponsibly, for God's sake.

On the other, this is very similar to the push for "protecting" kids from "pornography." I don't trust this to not result in massive proliferation of invasive age-gating systems regardless of any AI use at all. We'll get the worst of both worlds, won't we?

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Surveillance is the goal. "For the children" has proven an effective red herring over the years.

[–] LukeZaz@beehaw.org 1 points 15 hours ago

I'm aware. I think the primary difference between this bill and that general age-gating push is that AI itself does cause very real harm. To everyone, really. I'm not sure I'd even say children are particularly vulnerable.

Regardless, I came to the conclusion that the bill isn't worth it as-is in my newer analysis post.

load more comments (1 replies)