4 ms·
Proposed: The laws were drafted in the age of narrow AI and have little relevance in the age of general AI (LLMs, etc).
by dr_dshiv 3y ago
Proposed: The laws were drafted in the age of narrow AI and have little relevance in the age of general AI (LLMs, etc).
- Jensson 3y agoI think these parts are relevant, it will be very nice to get this for LLM and image generators: > Generative AI, like ChatGPT, will not be classified as high-risk, but will have to comply with transparency requirements and EU copyright law: > Disclosing that the content was generated by AI > Designing the model to prevent it from generating illegal content > Publishing summaries of copyrighted data used for training This means that now if an article was generated by LLM they are legally required to disclose that.
- TunaTuna 3y agoThose last two are just going to make llms harder to use and act dumber. Annoying but not the end of the world. I have no idea how disclosure can possibly be enforced though. There's just no realistic way to distinguish a reasonably good image generation and a photoshop job.
- Bjorkbat 3y ago> Disclosing that the content was generated by AI Hmm, hadn't thought of that angle before. So, like, if one uses a copilot to generate code, does it now have to be watermarked somehow?
- dr_dshiv 3y agoCritiques: 1. "AI generated content": Is it generated by LLMs if LLMs were used in any way? e.g., getting ideas? If you use a single word? Sentence? Paragraph? If a person has edited things down? 2. "Prevent it from generating illegal content": It is illegal to libel. An autocorrect can generate libel. 3. "summaries of copyrighted data": and if it used GPT4 as the evaluator?