We need to keep CEOs away from AI regulation


Policymakers must not let complexity stop them from doing their job. 6park.com
政策制定者不应该因为AI的复杂性而气馁，这种复杂性反而应该促使他们担负起监管的责任。



Tech companies recognise that the race for AI dominance is decided not only in the marketplace but also in Washington and Brussels. Rules governing the development and integration of their AI products will have an existential impact on them, but currently remain up in the air. So executives are trying to get ahead and set the tone, by arguing that they are best placed to regulate the very technologies they produce. AI might be novel, but the talking points are recycled: they are the same ones Mark Zuckerberg used about social media and Sam Bankman-Fried offered regarding crypto. Such statements should not distract democratic lawmakers again.  6park.com
科技公司认识到，决定它们能否在这场人工智能(AI)竞赛中赢得主导地位的不仅有市场，还有华盛顿和布鲁塞尔。管理AI产品开发和集成的规则将对这些公司产生生死攸关的影响，但这些规则目前仍未确定。因此，科技公司高管们正试图抢先一步定下基调，称由他们来监管他们自己生产的技术是最合适的。AI可能是个新鲜事物，但高管们的理由还是老一套：跟马克•扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)说到社交媒体、萨姆•班克曼-弗里德(Sam Bankman-Fried)说到加密货币时摆出的理由没有区别。这样的说辞不应再次迷惑民主国家的立法者。 6park.com
    
Imagine the chief executive of JPMorgan explaining to Congress that because financial products are too complex for lawmakers to understand, banks should decide for themselves how to prevent money laundering, enable fraud detection and set liquidity to loan ratios. He would be laughed out of the room. Angry constituents would point out how well self-regulation panned out in the global financial crisis. From big tobacco to big oil, we have learnt the hard way that businesses cannot set disinterested regulations. They are neither independent nor capable of creating countervailing powers to their own. 6park.com
想象一下，摩根大通(JPMorgan)首席执行官向国会解释说，由于金融产品太复杂了，立法者难以理解，所以银行应该自己决定如何防止洗钱、侦察诈骗，以及设定流动资金与贷款的比率。他会引起哄堂大笑。愤怒的选民会拿出全球金融危机的例子，指出这就是让银行自我监管的结果。从大型烟草公司到石油巨头，我们已经从惨痛的教训中领悟到，企业不可能不受自身利益影响制定公正的监管规则。它们既不是独立的，也没有能力创造与自身抗衡的力量。 6park.com
   
Somehow that basic truth has been lost when it comes to AI. Lawmakers are eager to defer to companies and want their guidance on regulation; Senators even asked OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman to name potential industry leaders to oversee a putative national AI regulator.  6park.com
当讨论AI时，这个基本事实不知为何被抛诸脑后。立法者们急于听从企业的建议，并希望由企业来指导监管；参议员甚至请OpenAI首席执行官萨姆•奥特曼(Sam Altman)推荐一下哪些业内领袖或许可以督导一个设想中的国家AI监管机构。 6park.com
   
Within industry circles, the calls for AI regulation have verged on apocalyptic. Scientists warn that their creations are too powerful and could go rogue. A recent letter, signed by Altman and others, warned that AI posed a threat to humanity’s survival akin to nuclear war. You would think these fears would spur executives into action but, despite signing, virtually none have modified their own behaviour. Perhaps their framing of how we think of guardrails around AI is the actual goal. Our ability to navigate questions about the type of regulation needed is also heavily influenced by our understanding of the technology itself. The statements have focused attention on AI’s existential risk. But critics argue that prioritising the prevention of this down the line overshadows the much-needed work against discrimination and bias that should be happening today. 6park.com
在业界，对AI进行监管的呼声高得好像要世界末日了一般。科研人员警告说，他们的发明太强大了，可能会失控。一封最近由奥特曼和其他人联署的公开信警告说，AI对人类的生存构成了类似于核战争的威胁。你或许认为这些担忧会促使高管们采取行动，但尽管签署了该公开信，他们中几乎没人改变自己的行为。也许框定我们对AI“护栏”的想象才是他们真正的目标。我们思考需要如何监管AI这个问题的能力，也受到我们对技术本身的理解的严重影响。这些声明将注意力集中在AI对人类生存构成的风险上。但批评人士认为，优先考虑预防这种终极危险，掩盖了今天就应该开展的一项非常必要的工作，那就是纠正AI蕴含的歧视和偏见。 6park.com
   
Warnings about the catastrophic risks of AI, supported by the very people who could stop pushing their products into society, are disorienting. The open letters make signatories seem powerless in their desperate appeals. But those sounding the alarm already have the power to slow or pause the potentially dangerous progression of artificial intelligence. 6park.com
对AI带来灾难性风险的警告——得到了那些本可以停止向社会推出AI产品的人的支持——让人感到困惑。公开信的签署人发出绝望的呼吁，好像他们是无能为力的。但那些发出警报的人已经掌握着让AI的潜在危险减慢或暂停发展的能力。 6park.com
   
Former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt maintains that companies are the only ones equipped to develop guardrails, while governments lack the expertise. But lawmakers and executives are not experts in farming, fighting crime or prescribing medication either, yet they regulate all those activities. They should certainly not be discouraged by the complexity of AI — if anything it should encourage them to take responsibility. And Schmidt has unintentionally reminded us of the first challenge: breaking the monopolies on access to proprietary information. With independent research, realistic risk assessments and guidelines on the enforcement of existing regulations, a debate about the need for new measures would be based on facts. 6park.com
谷歌(Google)前首席执行官埃里克•施密特(Eric Schmidt)坚持认为，只有企业有能力开发“护栏”，而政府缺乏这方面的专业知识。但立法者和行政部门也不是农业、打击犯罪或开处方药方面的专家，但他们监管着所有这些活动。他们当然不应该因为AI的复杂性而气馁——这种复杂性反而应该促使他们担负起责任。施密特无意中提醒了我们需要应对的第一个挑战：打破对专有信息获取权的垄断。有了独立的研究、切合实际的风险评估和现有法规如何执行方面的指导方针，关于是否需要制定新措施的辩论将建立在事实的基础之上。 6park.com
   
Executive actions speak louder than words. Just a few days after Sam Altman welcomed AI regulation in his testimony before Congress, he threatened to pull the plug on OpenAI’s operations in Europe because of it. When he realised that EU regulators did not take kindly to threats, he switched back to a charm offensive, pledging to open an office in Europe. 6park.com
高管的行动比言语更有说服力。萨姆•奥特曼在国会作证时对AI监管表示欢迎，但几天后他就因为监管问题威胁不再经营OpenAI在欧洲的业务。当他意识到欧盟监管机构不喜欢被威胁时，他又转而施展魅力攻势，承诺在欧洲开设办事处。 6park.com
   
Lawmakers must remember that businesspeople are principally concerned with profit rather than societal impacts. It is high time to move beyond pleasantries and to define specific goals and methods for AI regulation. Policymakers must not let tech CEOs shape and control the narrative, let alone the process. 6park.com
立法者们必须记住，商人首要关心的是利润，而非社会影响。现在是不再讲客气，并为AI监管确立具体目标和方法的时候了。政策制定者绝不能让科技公司的首席执行官塑造并控制叙事，更不用说整个进程了。 6park.com
   
A decade of technological disruption has highlighted the importance of independent oversight. That principle is even more important when the power over technologies like AI is concentrated in a handful of companies. We should listen to the powerful individuals running them but never take their words at face value. Their grand claims and ambitions should instead kick regulators and lawmakers into action based on their own expertise: that of the democratic process. 6park.com
十年来科技对各行各业的颠覆凸显了独立监管的重要性。鉴于AI这样技术的掌控权集中在少数几家公司手中，这一原则就更加重要了。我们应该听取那些执掌这些公司的巨头的意见，但不要照单全收。相反，他们的宏大主张和雄心应该促使监管机构和立法者根据自己的专业知识、也就是对民主进程的专业知识采取行动。 6park.com