The race to declare the need to distinctly regulate AI software fails to acknowledge all that is regulated and how we got to software opportunity in the first place.
I enjoyed the post. But I wonder if the power of AI in the hands of a desperate State, or institution, or individual can be harnessed to invent a weapon of destruction that is so innovative that counter measures can not be created in time to prevent the damage it could inflict?
Of course anything can be used by a desperate state, as they already use computers in all sorts of ways.
My concern is that attempts to restrict the use of AI will result in less AI expertise, products, and usage for non-state efforts. In effect the state becomes the monopoly of the technology AND we all get less of it. This is what the US government tried to do with basic encryption technology. They wanted to maintain control the technology to prevent bad actors but in the process we would not have all. had safe online shopping, banking, or private chat. Safe as in safe from the desperate states!
I guess innovation has always outpaced regulation. I am not advocating state control actually. But I hope it ends well and that human capacity for survival trumps our capacity for evil!
The only thing I can see potentially needing some add-on regulatory attention, and here I'm speaking of AI-enabled medical tech - think provider assists in EHRs- is traceability of results. ie. ensuring that recommendations/responses reliably and **transparently** follow the evidence.
But then, I suppose this is just an extension to the current regs around traceability, isn't it?
It's a fascinating time for s/w. Makes me wish I was 20 years earlier in my career....
Good call out for sure. I think this one is handled quite well in the field as the records indicate what tools were used and the accountability is always to the physician. One system I know for example recommends a treatment or not based on emergency room imaging but the records system records the opinion of two doctors and uses the software as confirmation. The FDA has been all over the use of computers so at least for this one I am not as concerned about it being a new space.
This got me musing a bit. One area where this could make a big dent - caveats above, apply- is the very long lag between discovery and practice. IIRC, it takes some **17 years!** for new knowledge in the medical research to reach standards of care. And given the pace of drug research and discovery - large and small molecule, and on and on- this isn't likely to get better and meaningfully improve care without the application of LLM tools etc to surface relevant data at the point of care. Workflow on (pun intended) steroids.
I enjoyed the post. But I wonder if the power of AI in the hands of a desperate State, or institution, or individual can be harnessed to invent a weapon of destruction that is so innovative that counter measures can not be created in time to prevent the damage it could inflict?
Of course anything can be used by a desperate state, as they already use computers in all sorts of ways.
My concern is that attempts to restrict the use of AI will result in less AI expertise, products, and usage for non-state efforts. In effect the state becomes the monopoly of the technology AND we all get less of it. This is what the US government tried to do with basic encryption technology. They wanted to maintain control the technology to prevent bad actors but in the process we would not have all. had safe online shopping, banking, or private chat. Safe as in safe from the desperate states!
I guess innovation has always outpaced regulation. I am not advocating state control actually. But I hope it ends well and that human capacity for survival trumps our capacity for evil!
The only thing I can see potentially needing some add-on regulatory attention, and here I'm speaking of AI-enabled medical tech - think provider assists in EHRs- is traceability of results. ie. ensuring that recommendations/responses reliably and **transparently** follow the evidence.
But then, I suppose this is just an extension to the current regs around traceability, isn't it?
It's a fascinating time for s/w. Makes me wish I was 20 years earlier in my career....
Good call out for sure. I think this one is handled quite well in the field as the records indicate what tools were used and the accountability is always to the physician. One system I know for example recommends a treatment or not based on emergency room imaging but the records system records the opinion of two doctors and uses the software as confirmation. The FDA has been all over the use of computers so at least for this one I am not as concerned about it being a new space.
This got me musing a bit. One area where this could make a big dent - caveats above, apply- is the very long lag between discovery and practice. IIRC, it takes some **17 years!** for new knowledge in the medical research to reach standards of care. And given the pace of drug research and discovery - large and small molecule, and on and on- this isn't likely to get better and meaningfully improve care without the application of LLM tools etc to surface relevant data at the point of care. Workflow on (pun intended) steroids.