4 ms·

> It's another to knowingly accept malicious errors, either unpredictable or even intentional, but without proper responsibility? Is this law making the users

> 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".
  - troupo 3y ago
    > Utterly insane, we are sliding backwards into the "code is a munitions export" Of course not. This goes hand in hand with such things as "being accountable". You can't spit out a black box that no one knows what it does and how it was trained? Too bad for you. Perhaps this will lead to fewer things like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38595751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38595751
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      > You can't spit out a black box that no one knows what it does and how it was trained? What if I want to? Who on earth has the ethical authority to claim the right to control my ability to release a set of weights? Only what is done with those weights should be legislated, and extremely conservatively. Maybe a lot of software developers got into this career for the money, or because they like solving problems. But for me, politics inseparable from software engineering. Politics are why I devoted myself to the craft. This is the exact kind of situation in which my knowledge and skill become tools of protest.
      - candiodari 3y ago
        I don't think this law is meant to stop these things at all. It's meant to make sure that companies and governments who do this and use models as an excuse go free and have someone to blame if they get caught.
      - troupo 3y ago
        > Who on earth has the ethical authority to claim the right to control my ability Do you also complain about so many other things that "unethically curb your abilities"? > Only what is done with those weights should be legislated, and extremely conservatively. Ah yes, let's regulate this black box with no insight into what it does, and only guess at its possible outcome. Whatever can go wrong? Oh, we know what can go wrong, because we've had multiple issues with algorithms going wrong.
        3y ago

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".
- troupo 3y ago
  > Utterly insane, we are sliding backwards into the "code is a munitions export" Of course not. This goes hand in hand with such things as "being accountable". You can't spit out a black box that no one knows what it does and how it was trained? Too bad for you. Perhaps this will lead to fewer things like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38595751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38595751
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    > You can't spit out a black box that no one knows what it does and how it was trained? What if I want to? Who on earth has the ethical authority to claim the right to control my ability to release a set of weights? Only what is done with those weights should be legislated, and extremely conservatively. Maybe a lot of software developers got into this career for the money, or because they like solving problems. But for me, politics inseparable from software engineering. Politics are why I devoted myself to the craft. This is the exact kind of situation in which my knowledge and skill become tools of protest.
    - candiodari 3y ago
      I don't think this law is meant to stop these things at all. It's meant to make sure that companies and governments who do this and use models as an excuse go free and have someone to blame if they get caught.
    - troupo 3y ago
      > Who on earth has the ethical authority to claim the right to control my ability Do you also complain about so many other things that "unethically curb your abilities"? > Only what is done with those weights should be legislated, and extremely conservatively. Ah yes, let's regulate this black box with no insight into what it does, and only guess at its possible outcome. Whatever can go wrong? Oh, we know what can go wrong, because we've had multiple issues with algorithms going wrong.
      - 3y ago