4 ms·

They do not mention that OpenAI lobbied heavily for this act to be watered down. https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/ https://time.com/6288245/o

They do not mention that OpenAI lobbied heavily for this act to be watered down. https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/ https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/ >Still, OpenAI’s lobbying effort appears to have been a success: the final draft of the Act approved by E.U. lawmakers did not contain wording present in earlier drafts suggesting that general purpose AI systems should be considered inherently high risk. Instead, the agreed law called for providers of so-called “foundation models,” or powerful AI systems trained on large quantities of data, to comply with a smaller handful of requirements including preventing the generation of illegal content, disclosing whether a system was trained on copyrighted material, and carrying out risk assessments. OpenAI supported the late introduction of “foundation models” as a separate category in the Act, a company spokesperson told TIME. Given how much we see these 'general' systems in political propaganda (think of all the Twitter far right propaganda unmasked by users replying with 'ignore previous instructions') I'm not sure I agree that these models do not fall under the high risk label. The rules for high-risk systems are understandable, mostly increased human oversight and increased transparency: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/section/3-2/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/section/3-2/ I understand that OpenAI does not want increased transparency in line with being the least transparent AI company out there. It's not like they don't have the money to follow these rules.

dsign 2y ago
> Given how much we see these 'general' systems in political propaganda (think of all the Twitter far right propaganda unmasked by users replying with 'ignore previous instructions') I'm not sure I agree that these models do not fall under the high risk label. IMO, political propaganda is still low-risk; it simply means that citizens are panzying around and believing anything that pops in their feeds, and the correct counter-measure is to ban or regulate social media or to find a mechanism to encourage citizens to make better judgements (say, a tax deduction after passing a maths and modelling exam, a check for number of well-researched books read, or anything better than my 20-seconds-of-consideration rant). I also like the current classification, but I hope that as AI's get better and more dangerous, our regulations will evolve accordingly.

dsign 2y ago

> Given how much we see these 'general' systems in political propaganda (think of all the Twitter far right propaganda unmasked by users replying with 'ignore previous instructions') I'm not sure I agree that these models do not fall under the high risk label. IMO, political propaganda is still low-risk; it simply means that citizens are panzying around and believing anything that pops in their feeds, and the correct counter-measure is to ban or regulate social media or to find a mechanism to encourage citizens to make better judgements (say, a tax deduction after passing a maths and modelling exam, a check for number of well-researched books read, or anything better than my 20-seconds-of-consideration rant). I also like the current classification, but I hope that as AI's get better and more dangerous, our regulations will evolve accordingly.