3 ms·

NIST Draft Guidance Inherently Hostile to Open-Source AI Models

campuscodi 2y ago
That's why their draft documents, so you can make public comments. If the drafts are getting hostile, means most feedback has pushed them that way.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  Fortunately, AI interests are massive and well funded. I am confident suggestions will be the best that money can buy. This isn't a complaint but a perspective to add some context (and to remind that the public is the least-funded stakeholder in a gov RFC). I don't weigh heavily for or against AI/DL/LLM/ML computing. I do hope our gov representatives 1) have sufficient wisdom/knowledge and 2) are well-enough insulated from corruption to write regs that benefit the public, long-term.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    > AI interests are massive and well funded No, the interests that are well funded are of closed-source AI to maintain an unfair and artificial moat against open-source AI. In contrast, the interests of open-source AI are not that well funded. > are well-enough insulated from corruption They really are not, and the Supreme Court isn't either. In fact, lying and scheming practically are prerequisites to being a politician.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lupire 2y ago
They forgot to say how
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  It’s in the comments filing they submitted: https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/TechFreedom-NIST-AI-800-1-Comments.pdf https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/TechFreed...
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
In case people are wondering, these guidelines can end up being more like strict requirements in real life. For example, a partner company or customer company might require following such guidelines, even if they are just labeled “best practices”, as part of a contract with your company. Or maybe your company’s insurance agency requires it. Or maybe your auditing firm will refuse to sign off on something without implementing such guidelines. My point is, even something advertised as “best practices” can become more like “forced requirements”, in many different and surprising ways. In the case of AI, you can see how a president’s executive order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...), which is what pushed NIST to create this draft, can ultimately force private companies to adhere to a president’s whim. This can be especially dangerous when you consider that these guidelines discuss misinformation, disinformation, and “hateful” content, as this feels a lot like violating first amendment rights through multiple steps using the flimsy claim that such guidelines are merely voluntary.

That's why their draft documents, so you can make public comments. If the drafts are getting hostile, means most feedback has pushed them that way.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
Fortunately, AI interests are massive and well funded. I am confident suggestions will be the best that money can buy. This isn't a complaint but a perspective to add some context (and to remind that the public is the least-funded stakeholder in a gov RFC). I don't weigh heavily for or against AI/DL/LLM/ML computing. I do hope our gov representatives 1) have sufficient wisdom/knowledge and 2) are well-enough insulated from corruption to write regs that benefit the public, long-term.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  > AI interests are massive and well funded No, the interests that are well funded are of closed-source AI to maintain an unfair and artificial moat against open-source AI. In contrast, the interests of open-source AI are not that well funded. > are well-enough insulated from corruption They really are not, and the Supreme Court isn't either. In fact, lying and scheming practically are prerequisites to being a politician.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lupire 2y ago

They forgot to say how

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
It’s in the comments filing they submitted: https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/TechFreedom-NIST-AI-800-1-Comments.pdf https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/TechFreed...

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

In case people are wondering, these guidelines can end up being more like strict requirements in real life. For example, a partner company or customer company might require following such guidelines, even if they are just labeled “best practices”, as part of a contract with your company. Or maybe your company’s insurance agency requires it. Or maybe your auditing firm will refuse to sign off on something without implementing such guidelines. My point is, even something advertised as “best practices” can become more like “forced requirements”, in many different and surprising ways. In the case of AI, you can see how a president’s executive order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...), which is what pushed NIST to create this draft, can ultimately force private companies to adhere to a president’s whim. This can be especially dangerous when you consider that these guidelines discuss misinformation, disinformation, and “hateful” content, as this feels a lot like violating first amendment rights through multiple steps using the flimsy claim that such guidelines are merely voluntary.