[ExI] ten year ban on state ai regulations?

[spike at rainier66.com]

Adrian wrote:

 

>…Being unable to imagine it is not much of an issue in this case.  Simply look up how the states are doing it - those states that have AI regulations, anyway…  Adrian 

 

 

*	Legal Definition of AI: The definition provided by California for AI is: "an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments" (AB-2885 <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2885> ).

 

 

 

OK, so California now regulates nearly all software development, depending on how one defines the term “regulates.”  It identifies AI without actually saying it is two letters, and a fancy thing.  OK then, that’s progress.  Or perhaps not, but in any case, there is one thing in there that makes a lotta sense: AB-2905 requires robocallers to disclose when they used deep-fake-created voices.  This is intriguing in itself: are they now claiming that deep fake AI can have real-time discussions with people and mimic a particular voice?  If so, my vision is complete: we can now have a robo-companion for the elderly, in which the patient can have discussions with a machine which uses the image and voice of a deceased companion.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250702/0c39bcfc/attachment.htm>