3 ms·

> 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.

> 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.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      > Do you also complain about so many other things that "unethically curb your abilities"? You curiously omitted the last part of the sentence: "...to release a set of weights". Please don't pretend that I was speaking about anything else, and don't overgeneralize my statements; that becomes a straw man argument. Believe it or not, some laws are unethical. I am happy to provide examples. It's a case-by-case basis which involves evaluating the overall impact on human rights for all parties involved. The ideal scenario is one where all rights are preserved under good faith, and publishing/owning models is treated no different than any other software project, while the actual use of such software continues to be subject to existing laws. In this case, can strengthen consumer rights without weakening developer rights. > 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? I specifically said we should not be legislating weights, so I'm confused about which point you are trying to make. Weights are the black box. Company policy, employee behavior, and business logic are not, and are accessible for scrutiny by the courts if needed. So no, let's not regulate the existence of software, which sets an incredibly dark precedent for digital sovereignty.
      - troupo 3y ago
        > while the actual use of such software continues to be subject to existing laws. In this case, can strengthen consumer rights without weakening developer rights. Emphasis mine --- start quote --- ANNEX IV TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION referred to in Article 11(1) ... 2. A detailed description of the elements of the AI system and of the process for its development, including: ... where relevant, the data requirements in terms of datasheets describing the training methodologies and techniques and the training data sets used, including information about the provenance of those data sets, their scope and main characteristics; how the data was obtained and selected; labelling procedures (e.g. for supervised learning), data cleaning methodologies (e.g. outliers detection); --- end quote --- So let's see Article 11(1) --- start quote --- The technical documentation of a high-risk AI system shall be drawn up before that system is placed on the market or put into service and shall be kept up-to date. --- end quote --- Conclusion: all you're doing is spreading FUD.
moritzwarhier 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. I'm not sure if that's what the legislation is about though? I hoped for it to be more about legal responsibility for the results of operating AI services, considering they pose difficult legal challenges, at least I suppose so, regarding responsibility. I admit that I have not studied the law in detail, and in case it wasn't clear, I am Not A Lawyer. If the law instead is about regulating the release of model weights, I will understand this and it would of course disappoint me.
- troupo 3y ago
  > If the law instead is about regulating the release of model weights, I will understand this and it would of course disappoint me. Of course it's not about that. It's pure unadulterated FUD. The law is about many things: https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-act/ https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-ac...

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.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    > Do you also complain about so many other things that "unethically curb your abilities"? You curiously omitted the last part of the sentence: "...to release a set of weights". Please don't pretend that I was speaking about anything else, and don't overgeneralize my statements; that becomes a straw man argument. Believe it or not, some laws are unethical. I am happy to provide examples. It's a case-by-case basis which involves evaluating the overall impact on human rights for all parties involved. The ideal scenario is one where all rights are preserved under good faith, and publishing/owning models is treated no different than any other software project, while the actual use of such software continues to be subject to existing laws. In this case, can strengthen consumer rights without weakening developer rights. > 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? I specifically said we should not be legislating weights, so I'm confused about which point you are trying to make. Weights are the black box. Company policy, employee behavior, and business logic are not, and are accessible for scrutiny by the courts if needed. So no, let's not regulate the existence of software, which sets an incredibly dark precedent for digital sovereignty.
    - troupo 3y ago
      > while the actual use of such software continues to be subject to existing laws. In this case, can strengthen consumer rights without weakening developer rights. Emphasis mine --- start quote --- ANNEX IV TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION referred to in Article 11(1) ... 2. A detailed description of the elements of the AI system and of the process for its development, including: ... where relevant, the data requirements in terms of datasheets describing the training methodologies and techniques and the training data sets used, including information about the provenance of those data sets, their scope and main characteristics; how the data was obtained and selected; labelling procedures (e.g. for supervised learning), data cleaning methodologies (e.g. outliers detection); --- end quote --- So let's see Article 11(1) --- start quote --- The technical documentation of a high-risk AI system shall be drawn up before that system is placed on the market or put into service and shall be kept up-to date. --- end quote --- Conclusion: all you're doing is spreading FUD.

moritzwarhier 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. I'm not sure if that's what the legislation is about though? I hoped for it to be more about legal responsibility for the results of operating AI services, considering they pose difficult legal challenges, at least I suppose so, regarding responsibility. I admit that I have not studied the law in detail, and in case it wasn't clear, I am Not A Lawyer. If the law instead is about regulating the release of model weights, I will understand this and it would of course disappoint me.

troupo 3y ago
> If the law instead is about regulating the release of model weights, I will understand this and it would of course disappoint me. Of course it's not about that. It's pure unadulterated FUD. The law is about many things: https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-act/ https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-ac...