Trump AI plan rips the brakes out of the car and gives Big Tech exactly what it wanted The White House on Wednesday announced its AI Action Plan, unveiling a sweeping anti-regulatory approach that disengages the brakes from AI development and datacenter construction in the US. The plan also promises to clamp down on what it called "ideological bias" in AI models. The document envisions AI development as a race …
In Aristotle's Politics, he contends that there are "natural slaves."
Trump has vindicated his observations. The fecklessness of Americans, allowing themselves to be dragged off by masked gunmen after all that fuss over personal arms and constitutional order, the looting of their own wealth and that of their children.
I'd say it's shameful if I wasn't a fucking yank myself.
At least the militia driving round in A-Team vans snatching people off the street, the judges wiping their arses on the rule of law, and the billionaire robber barons aren't woke - that's what counts.
Cough … you mean a
“well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
The original intent was for the militia to be a check on potential *government overreach* and to provide for the common defense.
Shame … the NRA missed their moment.
The NRA was always a barely covered right-wing militia, a bit like the SA. The guns weren't the goal just the means.
What's repulsive is "liberal" commentators making videos about the detention center in the everglades with the same breathless perverse thrill about a true crime story as it happens live. It's sickening to monetize ongoing suffering and consume it like entertainment while vocally handwringing about it.
Utter fucking moral degeneracy.
The Technical Press is starting to question AI. It's even on the nightly news! Some are even reporting it as a scam! The investors will find out that it really is a scam any minute now, so all my technical millionairebillionaire friends need to rake in as much loot as they possibly can before the balloon pops! Hopefully they'll give me a cut! If they don't, I'll make Congress tax the hell out of them! I own Congress and the Senate, have you noticed? I'm so great! ... what were we talking about?
oh, and also f**k all rules, f**k science, f**k environment. Climate change notwithstanding, building in sensitive locations is just really not what you should do.
Also note that those AI companies will not be allowed to export their services to the EU. There are actual rules to give an appearance of reducing risks. Like with the AI offerings in Windows 11, that will hopefully not be rolled out in the EU.
I'd also hope Schrems is doing another push to stop data sharing with the US. No protections exist there any more (I would argue there were few enough last year).
Tulips, Darien Scheme, South Seas bubble ….
The collapse of the A.I. bubble will be greater than DotCom bubble collapse in 2000 and financial one of 2007.
USA going gangsters on this will be hit hardest. With all of the Agent Orange other damage I can see a significant US credit downgrade to BAA coming.
Perhaps the Euro will become a reserve currency replacement.
That's actually a best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that AI hype turns out to be self-sustaining (via monetising your - no, make that all - data). Perhaps AI is working exactly as intended; it's just that the intention is not what you thought it was.
‘Flood the Zone’ … it’s hard to ignore.
Esp. When so much devastation being enacted, much obscured from much scrutiny whilst much blowing hard about nonsense.
The forthcoming - real soon - newly installed skeptic EPA leadership tearing down the guardrail of the 2009 Clean Air Act CO2 Endangerment ruling as yesterdays wheeze.
“Once and for all, we are getting rid of woke. Is that OK?” Trump said, drawing loud applause from the audience of AI industry leaders.
Their sycophancy will work until Trump wakes up the morning after another spat with Musk because grok said something about him and Epstein and he pulls funding for everything.
the tangerine tyrant has sign his latest executive order
orange / tango is the new white
free tango spray tan for anyone who can satisfy ICE they are allowed to be in the US
lies (posted on truth) are the new truth
US citizens don't pay for his tariffs
epstein was a misunderstood good guy
everything that is not from trumps mouth in the last 5 minutes is fake news (even if he said it 6 minutes ago)
etc etc
> From now on, the US government will deal only with AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality.
These do not exist. At the minimum, it would require the training data and process to have such attributes.
So a favourable reading of such statement would be that they will not purchase any AI snakeoil. Of course, in reality it means they will only purchase from their cronies. For these idiots, truth = the content of Trump's last tweet and impartiality = spewing out our side's propaganda.
Isn't the lack of regulation of SkyNet what lead to Terminator?
Once the Genie is out of it's bottle it is very difficult to put it back in...
I prefer the EU approach of "It's better to be safe than sorry" over the US approach of "move fast and break things" especially considering all the harm that the current "AI" is already creating...
"From now on, the US government will deal only with AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality."
Assuming that could be achieved, how are Trump, his sycophantic administration and MAGA morons, going to cope with it inevitably producing inconvenient truths?
They don't want the truth, they want lies, they want an echo chamber. What they say they want is even a lie.
"The [US] core philosophy is innovation first, market first, heavily deregulated. If you compare that with the European Union, it's regulation first. It's safety, it's precautionary," he said.
And on the left panel I see the reg article titled-
EU tries to explain how to do AI without breaking the law
If anything useful comes out of AI I am sure the EU will find more ways to end run its own rules and regulations to use it. Probably while trying to fine the big companies for being both successful and based in the US.
@LionelB
"Because big companies being successful and based in the US has worked so well for the world (*cough* Google, Meta, ...*cough*)."
Yes it really has. Most of your PC, windows, god knows how many linux contributors, products etc. Plus Google as one of the best search engines to come about. Whatsapp and before that skype, msn messenger and god knows how many things you have used and do use. So yes.
The EU has been trying to wean themselves off US tech and keep going back. The EU keeps trying to enforce walls to shut out US tech and businesses still use it. So yes.
> Yes it really has.
On a purely technological level, maybe... but that's a somewhat misty-eyed vision of "worked so well for the world". Small matters such as wholesale invasion of privacy, data and intellectual property theft, not to mention global platforming for mis/disinformation, social division and rank hatred do not seem to trouble you, as they (quite understandably) trouble, amongst others, the EU.
Some might argue that the latter is an inevitable consequence of the former - a price we must (all) pay for all that tech yumminess. But we accept regulation as essential in many domains (e.g., anti-trust legislation mitigates against "inevitable" bad outcomes of capitalism); there's even a name for that: we call it "the law". Why should we not try to mitigate the downsides of tech, as we do in other domains? (And no, whining "but, but, you'll stifle innovation" does not cut it, for so many reasons.)
The EU's attitude is not an evil lefty anti-US plot: it's a push-back against untrammelled and unaccountable hegemony. Me, I like (some of) Google's tech goodies (Meta's, not so much) - Google are very, very good at what they do (Meta, not so much) - but sorry, I didn't vote for them to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit.
@LionelB
"On a purely technological level, maybe"
What level were you considering AI?
"but that's a somewhat misty-eyed vision of "worked so well for the world""
Nope, absolute, solid, visible, fairly difficult to argue against. Absolute benefits.
"But we accept regulation as essential in many domains"
Yes to a point. We also look back at the horrors of history where regulation and law was used for evils.
"Why should we not try to mitigate the downsides of tech, as we do in other domains?"
Why should we ever develop anything new at all? Its dangerous! Like when Ug realised a stone was good for smashing things it caused lots of downsides. Of course vast upsides where we probably wouldnt even exist without the discovery. Or when Ug (unrelated) discovered fire! And pretty much the entirety of development throughout history to which you mistakenly believe is the pinnacle. if you dont believe it is the pinnacle then you must want further discovery and development although it will come with risks.
"The EU's attitude is not an evil lefty anti-US plot"
I know. Its fear. Absolute paralysing terrifying fear. So much so that the central government who cannot possibly have enough information to know anything deems itself the sole god to explain how AI may be developed. Of course it only applies in their walled off little world of the EU which is why they then end up using the developments from outside the EU such as the US and China. All my comment did was point to the contrast.
"Google are very, very good at what they do (Meta, not so much) - but sorry, I didn't vote for them to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit."
Yes you did, when you used them. And when you say world you mean their little world of their stuff under their control. Unless you are gonna go into illuminate conspiracies which would be very strange considering the US gov stomped on Meta to enforce a ministry of truth interference which has been exposed both for X and Facebook.
> What level were you considering AI?
I wasn't, actually. So far AI (or ML, as it used to be called) has been moderately to very successful in very specific domains (e.g., automatic language translation), and shows promise in areas such as medical diagnosis, weather forecasting, and many more. I don't see that LLMs have so far contributed anything of value to the human condition - if anything, quite the opposite. I still don't know what they're for.
>> "but that's a somewhat misty-eyed vision of "worked so well for the world""
> Nope, absolute, solid, visible, fairly difficult to argue against. Absolute benefits.
Opinion. We'll have to agree to differ there.
>> "But we accept regulation as essential in many domains"
> Yes to a point. We also look back at the horrors of history where regulation and law was used for evils.
Disingenuous; just about anything you can think of can, and has, been used for evil purposes. That is absolutely not a reason to abandon it (personally, I'm quite grateful to live in a world where the right for others to murder me is heavily regulated).
> Why should we ever develop anything new at all? Its dangerous!
Disingenuous; because new stuff may be useful and may improve quality of life. New stuff may also be potentially dangerous - that's why it may need to be regulated. But you knew that.
>> "The EU's attitude is not an evil lefty anti-US plot"
> I know. Its fear.
Sure; fear of the inappropriate power of unaccountable organisations with agendas that don't generally include good will towards European (or any) people.
> Absolute paralysing terrifying fear.
Apparently not so paralysing.
> Of course it only applies in their walled off little world of the EU
The EU is neither little, nor walled off. If any nation is walling off as we speak, it's the US.
> which is why they then end up using the developments from outside the EU such as the US and China.
Everyone uses developments by everyone - they call it "globalisation", apparently - do keep up.
>> "Google are very, very good at what they do (Meta, not so much) - but sorry, I didn't vote for them to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit."
> Yes you did, when you used them.
No, I didn't - by using their rather good software I voted for them to carry on developing rather good software. I would, in fact, like them to be regulated so as to not be able, as a sideline, to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit. I would even, god forbid, be prepared to pay for their rather good software if loss of their theft and world-domination sideline entailed an alternative revenue stream to support their software development business. Plus, their anti-competitive practices means my choices for alternatives to Google products are effectively curtailed.
> And when you say world you mean their little world of their stuff under their control.
Um, sure, it's called hyperbole. Though I'm not sure I'd use the word "little" to describe the Google world of data theft, intellectual property theft, suppression of competition, political influence, ... gangsterism, in a word.
> Unless you are gonna go into illuminate conspiracies ...
No conspiracy-theorising required - the Google conspiracy to rip us off is right there, in plain sight (they'd probably call it a "business plan").
@LionelB
"I wasn't, actually."
Ah ok, it just sounded strange to say "On a purely technological level, maybe" when discussing AI. As for your comments of use, I dont know if anything useful will come from the AI stuff eventually either.
"Opinion. We'll have to agree to differ there."
I was around when calls cost a lot of money and communicating with people in other countries was not cheap nor quick. I was also around before information was so quick and easy to access globally and searchable in ways that were effective. So you might disagree but I would find it hard to understand how.
"Just about anything you can think of can, and has, been used for evil purposes. That is absolutely not a reason to abandon it (personally, I'm quite grateful to live in a world where the right for others to murder me is heavily regulated)."
Hammer meet nail. Spot on. Anything can be used for evil purposes but it would inflict more harm to ban advancement. And we can agree to making murder illegal, which is broad enough to cover the problem. Over-regulating to stop any progression out of fear would cause harm in itself.
"Sure; fear of the inappropriate power of unaccountable organisations with agendas that don't generally include good will towards European (or any) people."..."Apparently not so paralysing."
The EU made such a dogs breakfast of things that they had to try to explain to innovators how they were allowed to innovate. We are talking about explorers going to the unknown with nobody knowing the possibilities and a few people who make up the gov with even less knowledge dictating how to explore. Writing that sounded almost Soviet or N.Korea kind of nuts but hopefully not so bad.
"The EU is neither little, nor walled off. If any nation is walling off as we speak, it's the US."
You say the US is walling off, ok. But then you will struggle to claim the EU isnt walled off too. Note the cries against Trump tariffs yet the EU tariffs. US wants to bring manufacturing home etc, the EU wants to make its own companies to rival US success but doesnt understand why they wont create in their heavy regulation environment. And by little world I mean their little domain in the world (regardless of it being government or a business) because the rest of the world is not ruled by them.
"Everyone uses developments by everyone - they call it "globalisation", apparently - do keep up."
The point seems to have shot by you, no shit sherlock. So others will develop things without the EU regulation by being in other parts of the world, and the EU will then use it. The amusement is then the EU laments not having their own successful version and doesnt seem to understand it is by their own design. Regulating it out of existence, which you (rightly or wrongly) deem the right thing to do. It is the trade off.
"No, I didn't - by using their rather good software I voted for them to carry on developing rather good software."
You use their software which supports their activities. Have a problem with their activities and you can go find something else to use. Instead you want the product but also to dictate the company... no.
"I would, in fact, like them to be regulated so as to not be able, as a sideline, to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit"
You dont think they should make profit or you for some unknown reason think they run the world? Given the example that demonstrates they dont in my last comment even.
"No conspiracy-theorising required - the Google conspiracy to rip us off is right there, in plain sight (they'd probably call it a "business plan")."
And yet where? Show me. Where is this illuminate running the world? And why did they let Bidens government dictate what is truth to them (Meta and twitter as the example)? These world running companies that keep getting low blowed by the EU who wants the product but to dictate how the company is run.
"Yes it really has. Most of your PC, windows, god knows how many linux contributors, products etc. Plus Google as one of the best search engines to come about. Whatsapp and before that skype, msn messenger and god knows how many things you have used and do use. So yes."
Have you not realised that the reason US International companies do so well is that they've historically been experts at dodging both International and Domestic Taxes, enabling them to dominate International Markets.
Take a look at Apple, What's it up to now, about $150billion in offshore profit swerving domestic and International taxes? Any attempt at countries putting in Digital Service type taxes to counteract it, results in the US government muscling in like some sort of Mafia.
I've paid more Tax than Amazon has in the UK in certain years. How can any domestic company compete with that?
None of the software you mention is unique in any way, it becomes mainstream due to dominance and money.
@elaar
"Have you not realised that the reason US International companies do so well is that they've historically been experts at dodging both International and Domestic Taxes, enabling them to dominate International Markets."
Ok so lets imagine for a moment that is true. The reason for such success from little to global is because they historically avoided being robbed by the governments. That would then logically suggest globally that life could seriously improve by government not stealing so much.
"I've paid more Tax than Amazon has in the UK in certain years. How can any domestic company compete with that?"
Its a fun dream but I doubt it.
"None of the software you mention is unique in any way, it becomes mainstream due to dominance and money."
Cool, so where is the EU version? They looked out in envy at these successes and cried they dont have such. Even suggesting to steal from the successful and give to start up competitors. Oddly the real world doesnt seem to agree. Kinda like the problem of making EV batteries in the EU but putting it off because most are imported from China. The EU regulating out of existence. Its not clean to dig but they want the end product.
