4 ms·

"obviously infeasible" is the interesting part. A) the law doesn't care if its infeasible or not. If someone actually challenges GPT3 on this, and GPT3 loses, t

"obviously infeasible" is the interesting part. A) the law doesn't care if its infeasible or not. If someone actually challenges GPT3 on this, and GPT3 loses, then these kind of models are obliged to find a way to comply with the law, or stop what they are doing - technical difficulty is not much of a defense. Also B) I think that there is probably a way to do this with either clever training data or algorithmics, which doesn't require retraining of the whole model. We need a precise theory to explain what these models are actually doing anyway. There are so many applications where we need more than a vague or probabilistic response.

yreg 4y ago
>the law doesn't care if its infeasible or not. Sure, option 3 is to stop offering the products. But simplistically, I expect companies to obey these laws when it is feasible. I'm not surprised that they shrug it over when they have no idea what to do. As you say, when (or if) it comes to a trial, the interpretation of the law for this particular case will be clarified. I think part of the reason why lawmakers made GDPR so vague was to not outright ban things which didn't even cross their minds (like GPT models), but instead let a court evaluate these cases in context down the line. Of course it's not the best situation, especially for small businesses which cannot risk working on a product that might or might not be illegal.