How Should AI Be Regulated?

A New York Times opinion piece argues people in the AI industry “are desperate to be regulated, even if it slows them down. In fact, especially if it slows them down.” But how?

What they tell me is obvious to anyone watching. Competition is forcing them to go too fast and cut too many corners. This technology is too important to be left to a race between Microsoft, Google, Meta and a few other firms. But no one company can slow down to a safe pace without risking irrelevancy. That’s where the government comes in — or so they hope… [A]fter talking to a lot of people working on these problems and reading through a lot of policy papers imagining solutions, there are a few categories I’d prioritize.

The first is the question — and it is a question — of interpretability. As I said above, it’s not clear that interpretability is achievable. But without it, we will be turning more and more of our society over to algorithms we do not understand… The second is security. For all the talk of an A.I. race with China, the easiest way for China — or any country for that matter, or even any hacker collective — to catch up on A.I. is to simply steal the work being done here. Any firm building A.I. systems above a certain scale should be operating with hardened cybersecurity. It’s ridiculous to block the export of advanced semiconductors to China but to simply hope that every 26-year-old engineer at OpenAI is following appropriate security measures.

The third is evaluations and audits. This is how models will be evaluated for everything from bias to the ability to scam people to the tendency to replicate themselves across the internet. Right now, the testing done to make sure large models are safe is voluntary, opaque and inconsistent. No best practices have been accepted across the industry, and not nearly enough work has been done to build testing regimes in which the public can have confidence. That needs to change — and fast.
The piece also recommends that AI-design companies “bear at least some liability for what their models.” But what legislation should we see — and what legislation will we see? “One thing regulators shouldn’t fear is imperfect rules that slow a young industry,” the piece argues.

“For once, much of that industry is desperate for someone to help slow it down.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Government Cybersecurity Agencies Unite to Urge Secure Software Design Practices

Several government cybersecurity agencies united to urge secure-by-design and secure-by-default software. Releasing “joint guidance” for software manufactuers were two U.S. security agencies — the FBI and the NSA — joined with the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the cybersecurity authorities of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, and New Zealand. “To create a future where technology and associated products are safe for customers,” they wrote in a joint statement, “the authoring agencies urge manufacturers to revamp their design and development programs to permit only secure-by-design and -default products to be shipped to customers.”

The Washington Post reports:
Software manufacturers should put an end to default passwords, write in safer programming languages and establish vulnerability disclosure programs for reporting flaws, a collection of U.S. and international government agencies said in new guidelines Thursday. [The guidelines also urge rigorous code reviews.]

The “principles and approaches” document, which isn’t mandatory but lays out the agencies’ views on securing software, is the first major step by the Biden administration as part of its push to make software products secure as part of the design process, and to make their default settings secure as well. It’s part of a potentially contentious multiyear effort that aims to shift the way software makers secure their products. It was a key feature of the administration’s national cybersecurity strategy, which was released last month and emphasized shifting the burden of security from consumers — who have to manage frequent software updates — to the companies that make often insecure products… The administration has also raised the prospect of legislation on secure-by-design and secure-by-default, but officials have said it could be years away….

The [international affairs think tank] Atlantic Council’s Cyber Statecraft Initiative has praised the Biden administration’s desire to address economic incentives for insecurity. Right now, the costs of cyberattacks fall on users more than they do tech providers, according to many policymakers. “They’re on a righteous mission,” Trey Herr, director of the Atlantic Council initiative, told me. If today’s guidelines are the beginning of the discussion on secure-by-design and secure-by-default, Herr said, “this is a really strong start, and an important one.”
“It really takes aim at security features as a profit center,” which for some companies has led to a lot of financial growth, Herr said. “I do think that’s going to rub people the wrong way and quick, but that’s good. That’s a good fight.”
In the statement CISA’s director says consumers also have a role to play in this transition. “As software now powers the critical systems and services we collectively rely upon every day, consumers must demand that manufacturers prioritize product safety above all else.”

Among other things, the new guidelines say that manufacturers “are encouraged make hard tradeoffs and investments, including those that will be ‘invisible’ to the customers, such as migrating to programming languages that eliminate widespread vulnerabilities.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Should Managers Permanently Stop Requiring Degrees for IT Positions?

CIO magazine reports on “a growing number of managers and executives dropping degree requirements from job descriptions.”

Figures from the 2022 study The Emerging Degree Reset from The Burning Glass Institute quantify the trend, reporting that 46% of middle-skill and 31% of high-skill occupations experienced material degree resets between 2017 and 2019. Moreover, researchers calculated that 63% of those changes appear to be “‘structural resets’ representing a measured and potentially permanent shift in hiring practices” that could make an additional 1.4 million jobs open to workers without college degrees over the next five years.

Despite such statistics and testimony from Taylor and other IT leaders, the debate around whether a college education is needed in IT isn’t settled. Some say there’s no need for degrees; others say degrees are still preferred or required…. IBM is among the companies whose leaders have moved away from degree requirements; Big Blue is also one of the earliest, largest, and most prominent proponents of the move, introducing the term “new collar jobs” for the growing number of positions that require specific skills but not a bachelor’s degree….

Not all are convinced that dropping degree requirements is the way to go, however. Jane Zhu, CIO and senior vice president at Veritas Technologies, says she sees value in degrees, value that isn’t always replicated through other channels. “Though we don’t necessarily require degrees for all IT roles here at Veritas, I believe that they do help candidates demonstrate a level of formal education and commitment to the field and provide a foundation in fundamental concepts and theories of IT-related fields that may not be easily gained through self-study or on-the-job training,” she says. “Through college education, candidates have usually acquired basic technical knowledge, problem-solving skills, the ability to collaborate with others, and ownership and accountability. They also often gain an understanding of the business and social impacts of their actions.”
The article notes an evolving trend of “more openness to skills-based hiring for many technical roles but a desire for a bachelor’s degree for certain positions, including leadership.” (Kelli Jordan, vice president of IBMer Growth and Development tells CIO that more than half of the job openings posted by IBM no longer require degrees.)
Thanks to Slashdot reader snydeq for sharing the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Germany Quits Nuclear Power, Closes Its Final Three Plants

“Germany’s final three nuclear power plants close their doors on Saturday,” reports CNN, “marking the end of the country’s nuclear era that has spanned more than six decades….”
[D]espite last-minute calls to keep the plants online amid an energy crisis, the German government has been steadfast. “The position of the German government is clear: nuclear power is not green. Nor is it sustainable,” Steffi Lemke, Germany’s Federal Minister for the Environment and Consumer Protection and a Green Party member, told CNN.”We are embarking on a new era of energy production,” she said.

The closure of the three plants — Emsland, Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim — represents the culmination of a plan set in motion more than 20 years ago. But its roots are even older. In the 1970s, a strong anti-nuclear movement in Germany emerged. Disparate groups came together to protest new power plants, concerned about the risks posed by the technology and, for some, the link to nuclear weapons. The movement gave birth to the Green Party, which is now part of the governing coalition…

For critics of Germany’s policy, however, it’s irrational to turn off a low-carbon source of energy as the impacts of the climate crisis intensify. “We need to keep existing, safe nuclear reactors operating while simultaneously ramping up renewables as fast as possible,” Leah Stokes, a professor of climate and energy policy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told CNN. The big risk, she said, is that fossil fuels fill the energy gap left by nuclear. Reductions in Germany’s nuclear energy since Fukushima have been primarily offset by increases in coal, according to research published last year.

Germany plans to replace the roughly 6% of electricity generated by the three nuclear plants with renewables, but also gas and coal…. Now Germany must work out what do with the deadly, high-level radioactive waste, which can remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.

CNN also notes how other countries approach nuclear power:

Denmark passed a resolution in the 1980s not to construct nuclear power plants
Finland opened a new nuclear plant last year
Switzerland voted in 2017 to phase out nuclear power
France, which gets about 70% of its power from nuclear, is planning six new reactors.
Italy closed its last reactors in 1990

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Universal Music Asks Streaming Services To Block AI Access To Its Songs

The world’s largest music company, Universal Music Group, is asking major streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music to block artificial intelligence companies from using its music to “train” their technology, according to a recent report in Financial Times. Variety reports: Confirming the report, a UMG spokesperson told the FT: “We have a moral and commercial responsibility to our artists to work to prevent the unauthorized use of their music and to stop platforms from ingesting content that violates the rights of artists and other creators. We expect our platform partners will want to prevent their services from being used in ways that harm artists.” The process involves the AI companies uploading copyrighted music from the platforms into their technology and thus enabling the bots to digest the lyrics and music and then essentially create songs or melodies in those styles. […]

UMG has been sending takedown requests to the streamers “left and right,” FT quoted an unnamed source as saying. “We have become aware that certain AI systems might have been trained on copyrighted content without obtaining the required consents from, or paying compensation to, the rightsholders who own or produce the content,” the company said in an email from last month, according to the report. “We will not hesitate to take steps to protect our rights and those of our artists.” The website drayk.it delivered users a custom Drake song, although it has since been shut down.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Scientists Create Eco-Friendly Paint That Keeps the Surface Beneath Cool

A team of researchers in Florida have created a way to mimic nature’s ability to reflect light and create beautifully vivid color without absorbing any heat like traditional pigments do. Debashis Chanda, a nanoscience researcher with the University of Central Florida, and his team published their findings in the journal Science Advances. NPR reports: Beyond just the beautiful arrays of color that structure can create, Chanda also found that unlike pigments, structural paint does not absorb any infrared light. Infrared light is the reason black cars get hot on sunny days and asphalt is hot to the touch in summer. Infrared light is absorbed as heat energy into these surfaces — the darker the color, the more the surface colored with it can absorb. That’s why people are advised to wear lighter colors in hotter climates and why many buildings are painted bright whites and beiges. Chanda found that structural color paint does not absorb any heat. It reflects all infrared light back out. This means that in a rapidly warming climate, this paint could help communities keep cool.

Chanda and his team tested the impact this paint had on the temperature of buildings covered in structural paint versus commercial paints and they found that structural paint kept surfaces 20 to 30 degrees cooler. This, Chanda said, is a massive new tool that could be used to fight rising temperatures caused by global warming while still allowing us to have a bright and colorful world. Unlike white and black cars, structural paint’s ability to reflect heat isn’t determined by how dark the color is. Blue, black or purple structural paints reflect just as much heat as bright whites or beige. This opens the door for more colorful, cooler architecture and design without having to worry about the heat.

It’s not just cleaner, Chanda said. Structural paint weighs much less than pigmented paint and doesn’t fade over time like traditional pigments. “A raisin’s worth of structural paint is enough to cover the front and back of a door,” he said. Unlike pigments which rely on layers of pigment to achieve depth of color, structural paint only requires one thin layer of particles to fully cover a surface in color. This means that structural paint could be a boon for aerospace engineers who rely on the lowest weight possible to achieve higher fuel efficiency. The possibilities for structural paint are endless and Chanda hopes that cans of structural paint will soon be available in hardware stores.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.