"Either we let corporate lobbyists write rules on AI to concentrate corporate power and wealth, or we demand that government officials prioritize the public interest."
Because there is no easy way to ban in a democracy. Originally, the term means someone who hangs around in the lobby of congress (or such like) and talks to representatives when they come through. Imagine this is just some ordinary voter who has an important issue on their minds; perhaps someone like Raphael Lemkin. He did that. Non-profit organizations - like Greenpeace - lobby, as well. It’s hard forbidding lobbying without unintended side effects.
Even if you did, it might not get you where you want. Representatives would still have an open ear for major employers in their districts. After all, voters want those jobs. Representatives meet those bosses on many occasions, like charity events. Money and power can be used to get more money and power.
Personal access is only a part of it, anyway. People influence the media and fund political ads. There’s also funding for think tanks and universities. People with money and power (or fame) can do more of that.
Don’t assume this something that just happens behind closed doors out of the public eye. For example, you may have noticed the recent kerfuffle between actress Scarlet Johansson and OpenAI. OAI allegedly hired a voice actress that sounded too similar to ScarJo. This community here seems to have largely sided with ScarJo. Which means that they want famous people to receive a rent for lending out their voices; a rent which will be ultimately paid by consumers. And if you have a similar voice? Tough.
This is exactly something that many of these AI lobbyists are paid to achieve. They are supposed to get money for the rich people who pay them; preferably without the rich people having to do work.
Interesting take I can appreciate, but hold on there…
This community here seems to have largely sided with ScarJo. Which means that they want famous people to receive a rent for lending out their voices
I dont think that’s what they mean at all. I doubt people care about ScarJo growing her bank account. I think most people who side with ScarJo just dont want Open AI stealing stuff it doesnt own, including people’s voices. Especially if they’re profiting off it.
That’s a bit of a fine point, but yes. They want famous people to have the power to demand a rent, other concessions, or to refuse a deal entirely. So it’s about more than just rent. It’s the same power that landlords have, but eventually it’s all about the money. If you equate it to stealing, then it’s about the money, no?
I think it would be unconstitutional in the US in light of citizens united. I’m sure that there are many things that could be done, but no simple answers like just banning lobbying.
Because there is no easy way to ban in a democracy. Originally, the term means someone who hangs around in the lobby of congress (or such like) and talks to representatives when they come through. Imagine this is just some ordinary voter who has an important issue on their minds; perhaps someone like Raphael Lemkin. He did that. Non-profit organizations - like Greenpeace - lobby, as well. It’s hard forbidding lobbying without unintended side effects.
Even if you did, it might not get you where you want. Representatives would still have an open ear for major employers in their districts. After all, voters want those jobs. Representatives meet those bosses on many occasions, like charity events. Money and power can be used to get more money and power.
Personal access is only a part of it, anyway. People influence the media and fund political ads. There’s also funding for think tanks and universities. People with money and power (or fame) can do more of that.
Don’t assume this something that just happens behind closed doors out of the public eye. For example, you may have noticed the recent kerfuffle between actress Scarlet Johansson and OpenAI. OAI allegedly hired a voice actress that sounded too similar to ScarJo. This community here seems to have largely sided with ScarJo. Which means that they want famous people to receive a rent for lending out their voices; a rent which will be ultimately paid by consumers. And if you have a similar voice? Tough.
This is exactly something that many of these AI lobbyists are paid to achieve. They are supposed to get money for the rich people who pay them; preferably without the rich people having to do work.
Interesting take I can appreciate, but hold on there…
I dont think that’s what they mean at all. I doubt people care about ScarJo growing her bank account. I think most people who side with ScarJo just dont want Open AI stealing stuff it doesnt own, including people’s voices. Especially if they’re profiting off it.
That’s a bit of a fine point, but yes. They want famous people to have the power to demand a rent, other concessions, or to refuse a deal entirely. So it’s about more than just rent. It’s the same power that landlords have, but eventually it’s all about the money. If you equate it to stealing, then it’s about the money, no?
I think you can just outlaw paying someone to do this, not the lobbying itself, no?
I think it would be unconstitutional in the US in light of citizens united. I’m sure that there are many things that could be done, but no simple answers like just banning lobbying.
Well yes it’s a given that Citizens United would need to be overturned for any of this to happen.