this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
34 points (94.7% liked)

Technology

73655 readers
4196 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
34
Kratsios: NIST needs ‘to go back to basics’ on standards for AI, not safety evaluation (fedscoop.com)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When the Biden administration created a safety institute at the standards agency and then used it to run “x-risk evals, I think we kind of lost our way there,” he said. (“X-risk” is a shortened term for “existential risk” that’s associated with the idea that AI poses major threats to humanity.)

“To me, I think we need to go back to basics at NIST, and back to basics around what NIST exists for, and that is to promulgate best-in-class standards and do critical metrology or measurement science around AI models,” Kratsios said.

Kratsios’s comments about the body once known as the AI Safety Institute came a day after the White House released its anticipated AI Action Plan — which made dozens of recommendations to do things like deregulate and rid AI of “ideological bias” — as well as three executive orders that set parts of that plan into motion. The Thursday panel, moderated by CTA’s CEO and vice chair Gary Shapiro, was focused on those actions.

The discussion also followed the Trump administration’s move last month to rename the NIST-located safety institute to the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, cutting “safety” from the name. That component was initially announced by the Biden administration in November 2023 at the UK AI Safety Summit and, over the next year, focused on working with industry, establishing testing agreements with companies, and conducting evaluations.

I get that he's most likely just "following orders" from Thiel, and probably not coming up with any of this policy, but I still hate this guy so much. I have to give Thiel credit. Once again proving he sure knows how to craft a good public scapegoat for when things inevitably go horribly wrong.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago

Rejection of externalities does not require violence or servitude; yet it is arguably a fundamental aspect of libertarianism.

No, it's not, this is factually incorrect.

You seem to be in denial that some ideologies start from a desired society to imagining whatever criteria will fit to practical means, like yours, and some, like libertarian ones, start from a set of desired criteria to imagining different possible desired societies and value sets and practical means fitting them. You seem pretend instead that libertarianism is too like the former ideologies, but with something you don't like as the desired point.

Also even typical ancap doesn't ignore externalia. Air pollution, for example, is considered. You might just not know what the flying fuck you are talking about, thinking it's "something-something absolute property rights".

I lived in the US under Bush and Obama, I can’t say that US oligarchs from the time “just loved liberal democracies with left traits”.

In rhetoric of course they did, just like in rhetoric they like libertarianism now. I don't need anything more, because you haven't provided anything more.

Some other examples come to mind (no web searches, just going from memory).

Facebook and Google and Apple and Microsoft are the oligarchies I was thinking about.

individuals who associate with libertarianism almost universally reject personal responsibility by leveraging polemics about “free” association.

This is a word salad. The whole point of libertarianism is that responsibility can't be delegated. It's just that to demand some things from others is not in your right, but that's not about their responsibility, that's about you making weird demands.

Even casually opening the Cato website (did it as an experiment), reveals a clear disregard for reality and tons of open corporate propaganda. Demagoguery; undeniably pre-meditated dishonesty.

What is this intended to say?

I said it's a good institution because it still does what it's intended to do - provides libertarian perspective on events without drift.

I didn't say you'll find things you won't call these cliches. Their purpose is not in being liked by you or in any way delivering upon your desires what they should and shouldn't say.

I've just visited their site and read their articles on a few random popular questions - surveillance, "hate speech", "AI".

I frankly felt much better from their sober tone. This (https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/misleading-panic-over-misinformation) article is perfect , it explains patiently and in non-agitated terms what I sometimes try to say about how some problems should be resolved.

(It, eh, doesn't touch upon some bigger threats like Google and others not really intending to ever further compete, but that has happened in the past and many of those companies are no longer around.)