4 ms·
Will not be enforceable imo, not sure if it is even constitutional - like it or not, output of AI engines is a type of free-speech. (and no, not that 'AI' has f
by ejb999 3y ago
Will not be enforceable imo, not sure if it is even constitutional - like it or not, output of AI engines is a type of free-speech. (and no, not that 'AI' has free speech rights, the creators of the AI do)
- Etheryte 3y agoI'm not sure this argument makes sense, could you perhaps elaborate? Not everything you create that has output goes under free speech. A torrent client is also a program that you can write that outputs art/text/whatever, doesn't mean it goes under free speech.
- ilikehurdles 3y agoThe federal executive doesn’t regulate the BitTorrent protocol fyi. Copyright infringement is a civil matter.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sidewndr46 3y agoWe've had close to a 100 years of drug prohibition which disagrees with this notion
- ejb999 3y agoselling illegal drugs is not free speech.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoPaper is not free speech. Writing is. Government can't stop you from writing things down but it can tell you what trees you cannot cut down. An llm as is is simply a tree. It cannot produce speech by itself, and even if it did modern robotics are not considered citizens (we can deal with that when it comes).
- andy99 3y agoI have no idea about the legal reality but it does feel interesting. Language models don't really "say" stuff, they predict array indicies probabilistically. In that kind of reductive view, it's the same as a classifier which afaik can be regulated (say against discrimination). Otoh if you take the view that the sum of LLM predictions is a kind of speech at the instigation of the operator, maybe... A lot of this should be moot. Whatever Llama or whatever predicts or says, it isn't dangerous. Regulating what an LLM can generate is like banning books. Regulating specific outcomes is a different story. If I make a chatbot that gives bad medical advice, I don't see any legal difference vs giving bad medic advice without the chatbot and that can be regulated and litigated accordingly. The "AI" angle is mostly just a trojan horse to try and exert more control in the name of defeating some boogeyman.
- da_chicken 3y agoYou're not sure if it's constitutional to regulate the sale of products or services to ensure that they're safe?
- ilikehurdles 3y agoCongress has the enumerated right to regulate commerce. This, being an executive order, is not an act of Congress. Consider the agencies you may be thinking of: FDA, FTC, FCC, etc. All have actual laws defining their scope. This is an overreach of the executive.
- jprete 3y agoProduct safety for consumer products seems to be directly in the FTC's domain.
- da_chicken 3y agoNo, that would be the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
- da_chicken 3y agoSure, but it's not like we're waiting for Congress to do that. It's not like the Department of Commerce hasn't been created, or that the Secretary of Commerce doesn't exist in the President's cabinet. The quasi-legislative agencies are not the sole source of regulation in the United States. Executive orders are also useful as temporary legal framework while Congress works on broader laws. As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Even if they don't carry the force of law to any relevant quasi-legislative officers, they give businesses a framework to work within while Congress works.
- hellojesus 3y agoCongress can only regulate commerce between states. If someone trained a model completely in state and then sold it to folks within the state, the commerce clause wouldn't apply. *Of course, you have to make sure no internet traverses state lines. Better to keep it off the web to be safe.