7 ms·

But don't you think that there should be regulation saying that delegating decisions to a technology system should make you fully responsible, and that growing

But don't you think that there should be regulation saying that delegating decisions to a technology system should make you fully responsible, and that growing capability of these systems make it more important to clarify that any "mistrusted the machine by accident" argument is null and void? For me, it's not important if the legal definition requires this term. It's not like automation and computer programs are being banned. It's the decision part that justifies this legal definition IMO. It's like the difference between a human or an automated car running over people. Quite literally even.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> But don't you think that there should be regulation saying that delegating decisions to a technology system What is a "decision"? My computer is making billions of decisions per second. If nothing else, I could see this crippling FOSS. No one is going to want to be "responsible" to some EU bureaucrat pursuing a personal political agenda, certainly not for work you've done for free.
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  Yeah I wanted to expand but got tired: Of course any computation can be considered a decision in some way. But this is conflating a narrow and IT-specific meaning of that word with legalese and philosophy, or my intended meaning of the word. This reminds me of the ancient catastrophic Therac-25 software bug, and other such cases. Maybe this case is a good example for thinking about what part of the responsibility is on the side of the operator, apart from the obvious failure of the implementer. For more modern examples involving actual ML, look at Meta, TikTok and their recommendations: where is the line to draw, what excuses are allowed, when the outcome is obviously negative, and the algorithm claims to fulfill a goal? It doesn't matter if it's a rule-based system without "intelligence" or ML. What matters is the responsibility of the human operator. And making assumptions about correctness. Humans make egregious errors as well, but the kind of errors AI causes are a significant concern where current legislation is insufficient. It's one thing to have a bug in your airplane controller code or whatever. It's another to knowingly accept malicious errors, either unpredictable or even intentional, but without proper responsibility?
  - candiodari 3y ago
    > It's another to knowingly accept malicious errors, either unpredictable or even intentional, but without proper responsibility? Is this law making the users of software responsible (e.g. law enforcement, government departments) ? It seems to me to make authors of software responsible, absolving the users. Not the other way around. They keep the law secret, of course, so anyone can claim what they want, but the article talks directly about the accountability of OpenAI. It seems to focus on rules on authors of AI software, presumably to mostly absolve governments and users of that software. "Rules around generative AI", "transparency requirements for any developer of a large language model" ... nothing that would make governments responsible for abusing AI software. Which is strange, because that's the concern the last paragraph of the article focuses on. I must say ... this "complete ban" voted by the EU parliament last spring, doesn't seem to have stopped governments from using live facial recognition [1]. [1] https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/21/new-french-facial-recognition-reveals-identity-in-a-click-ahead-of-paris-2024-olympics https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/21/new-french-facial-r...
    - troupo 3y ago
      > It seems to me to make authors of software responsible, absolving the users. Only the authors of foundational models. > They keep the law secret, of course You mean this secret law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52... that people have actually read https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-act/ https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-ac... ?
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        > Developers (not deployers) of foundation models need to register their models, with documentation, prior to making it available on the market or as a service. No, thanks. Utterly insane, we are sliding backwards into the "code is a munitions export" territory that I so hoped we'd escaped after the 90s. > If you take a foundation model, fine-tune it for a specialised purpose, and deploy it as a part of your software, it won’t count as a foundation model, and you’ll probably be fine, as long as the original provider of the foundation model was compliant. This interpretation would render the whole exercise pointless, there is quite a blurry line between "fine-tuning" and "training".
- Tainnor 3y ago
  Nobody cares about your CMS, online shop, code collaboration tool, etc. If your software however makes life-altering decisions for its users - such as targeting people for investigation, deciding on asylum requests, etc. - then you have to be responsible for the decisions your software makes. You can't hide behind "I don't know how the AI works, but it decided that person X is likely a criminal" - nope, you need to be able to explain the reasoning process behind this, because the system is your responsibility.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- troupo 3y ago
  > If nothing else, I could see this crippling FOSS. If anything, this should strengthen FOSS, because one of stipulations is "document your foundational models and training sets"
dmix 3y ago
Creating regulations for hypothetical scenarios and possibilities you can invent in your head is silly. Give me real examples of IRL harm. And most importantly give me real examples of how exactly state intervention directly solves those problems. Otherwise this is just a philosophical debate mixed with prepper type fear of what could happen.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  I assume one of the core idea would be to protect individual made by “blackbox” (complex or non complex) algorithm (e.g. used by banks and other companies) without any direct human involvement. Basically banning companies from just saying “ Computer says no”..
- germandiago 3y ago
  The anxiety for regulating absolutely everything in EU is starting to be harmful. We see mountains and mountains of regulations, some of ehich are really harmful (especially in the primary sector) and that I think are not well-intentioned. There is a full agenda of control-everything that I do not find healthy for the average citizen.
- troupo 3y ago
  > Give me real examples of IRL harm. China's social scoring? Racial profiling in government services? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/xenophobic-machines-dutch-child-benefit-scandal/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/xenophobic-ma... Rejecting qualified applicants? https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-itutorgroup-age-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-itutorgroup-age-disc... Racial bias skipping patients in healthcare? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-bias-found-in-a-major-health-care-risk-algorithm/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-bias-found... Recruiting ignoring women? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio... Wrongly issued debts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme and so on and so forth > And most importantly give me real examples of how exactly state intervention directly solves those problems. Like they solve about a billion others of problems daily, and you have no issues with government interventions. > Otherwise this is just a philosophical debate mixed with prepper type fear of what could happen. It's only philosophical if you willingly ignore the world around you

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> But don't you think that there should be regulation saying that delegating decisions to a technology system What is a "decision"? My computer is making billions of decisions per second. If nothing else, I could see this crippling FOSS. No one is going to want to be "responsible" to some EU bureaucrat pursuing a personal political agenda, certainly not for work you've done for free.

moritzwarhier 3y ago
Yeah I wanted to expand but got tired: Of course any computation can be considered a decision in some way. But this is conflating a narrow and IT-specific meaning of that word with legalese and philosophy, or my intended meaning of the word. This reminds me of the ancient catastrophic Therac-25 software bug, and other such cases. Maybe this case is a good example for thinking about what part of the responsibility is on the side of the operator, apart from the obvious failure of the implementer. For more modern examples involving actual ML, look at Meta, TikTok and their recommendations: where is the line to draw, what excuses are allowed, when the outcome is obviously negative, and the algorithm claims to fulfill a goal? It doesn't matter if it's a rule-based system without "intelligence" or ML. What matters is the responsibility of the human operator. And making assumptions about correctness. Humans make egregious errors as well, but the kind of errors AI causes are a significant concern where current legislation is insufficient. It's one thing to have a bug in your airplane controller code or whatever. It's another to knowingly accept malicious errors, either unpredictable or even intentional, but without proper responsibility?
- candiodari 3y ago
  > It's another to knowingly accept malicious errors, either unpredictable or even intentional, but without proper responsibility? Is this law making the users of software responsible (e.g. law enforcement, government departments) ? It seems to me to make authors of software responsible, absolving the users. Not the other way around. They keep the law secret, of course, so anyone can claim what they want, but the article talks directly about the accountability of OpenAI. It seems to focus on rules on authors of AI software, presumably to mostly absolve governments and users of that software. "Rules around generative AI", "transparency requirements for any developer of a large language model" ... nothing that would make governments responsible for abusing AI software. Which is strange, because that's the concern the last paragraph of the article focuses on. I must say ... this "complete ban" voted by the EU parliament last spring, doesn't seem to have stopped governments from using live facial recognition [1]. [1] https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/21/new-french-facial-recognition-reveals-identity-in-a-click-ahead-of-paris-2024-olympics https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/21/new-french-facial-r...
  - troupo 3y ago
    > It seems to me to make authors of software responsible, absolving the users. Only the authors of foundational models. > They keep the law secret, of course You mean this secret law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52... that people have actually read https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-act/ https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-ac... ?
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      > Developers (not deployers) of foundation models need to register their models, with documentation, prior to making it available on the market or as a service. No, thanks. Utterly insane, we are sliding backwards into the "code is a munitions export" territory that I so hoped we'd escaped after the 90s. > If you take a foundation model, fine-tune it for a specialised purpose, and deploy it as a part of your software, it won’t count as a foundation model, and you’ll probably be fine, as long as the original provider of the foundation model was compliant. This interpretation would render the whole exercise pointless, there is quite a blurry line between "fine-tuning" and "training".
Tainnor 3y ago
Nobody cares about your CMS, online shop, code collaboration tool, etc. If your software however makes life-altering decisions for its users - such as targeting people for investigation, deciding on asylum requests, etc. - then you have to be responsible for the decisions your software makes. You can't hide behind "I don't know how the AI works, but it decided that person X is likely a criminal" - nope, you need to be able to explain the reasoning process behind this, because the system is your responsibility.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
troupo 3y ago
> If nothing else, I could see this crippling FOSS. If anything, this should strengthen FOSS, because one of stipulations is "document your foundational models and training sets"

dmix 3y ago

Creating regulations for hypothetical scenarios and possibilities you can invent in your head is silly. Give me real examples of IRL harm. And most importantly give me real examples of how exactly state intervention directly solves those problems. Otherwise this is just a philosophical debate mixed with prepper type fear of what could happen.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
I assume one of the core idea would be to protect individual made by “blackbox” (complex or non complex) algorithm (e.g. used by banks and other companies) without any direct human involvement. Basically banning companies from just saying “ Computer says no”..
germandiago 3y ago
The anxiety for regulating absolutely everything in EU is starting to be harmful. We see mountains and mountains of regulations, some of ehich are really harmful (especially in the primary sector) and that I think are not well-intentioned. There is a full agenda of control-everything that I do not find healthy for the average citizen.
troupo 3y ago
> Give me real examples of IRL harm. China's social scoring? Racial profiling in government services? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/xenophobic-machines-dutch-child-benefit-scandal/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/xenophobic-ma... Rejecting qualified applicants? https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-itutorgroup-age-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-itutorgroup-age-disc... Racial bias skipping patients in healthcare? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-bias-found-in-a-major-health-care-risk-algorithm/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-bias-found... Recruiting ignoring women? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio... Wrongly issued debts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme and so on and so forth > And most importantly give me real examples of how exactly state intervention directly solves those problems. Like they solve about a billion others of problems daily, and you have no issues with government interventions. > Otherwise this is just a philosophical debate mixed with prepper type fear of what could happen. It's only philosophical if you willingly ignore the world around you