7 ms·
Anthropic achieves ISO 42001 certification for responsible AI
- qxfys 2y agoNoob question: do they need to re-certify for each new model release?
- bt3 2y agoNon-scientific answer: if this is anything like ISO27001, it's moreso a certification of processes that presumably govern the creation of all models.
- pinoy420 2y agoAlso worth noting, a lot of ISO certification is ridiculously easy to get. 27001 you can basically copy off some qms procedures to your google drive and call it a day
- dartos 2y agoAnyone in the know who can tell us what it specifically means to get this certification? The ISO faq for it just says “responsible AI management” over and over again.
- Zafira 2y agoThere are some draft PDFs of the standard floating around that are easily discoverable. It appears to be incredibly vague and it’s difficult to escape the sense that ISO just wants to jump on the AI bandwagon. There are no bright line rules or anything. It looks to be little more than weak scaffolding which a certified organization applies their own controls.
- number6 2y agoSadly, ISO 42001 certification doesn't ensure compliance with the EU AI Act. Since this is European legislation, it would be beneficial if certifications actually guaranteed regulatory compliance. For example, while ISO 27001 compliance does establish a strong foundation for many compliance requirement
- gr3ml1n 2y agoThe rest of the world should simply stop bothering with European silliness tbh.
- sofixa 2y agoAnd embrace the future of e.g. AI models deciding if you get healthcare or government services or a loan or if you're a fraud, or not, with zero oversight, accountability or responsibility for the organisation deploying them? Check out the Post Office scandal in the UK to see what can happen when "computer says so" is the only argument to imprison people, with no accountability for the company that sold the very wrong computers and systems, nor the organisation that bought them and blindly trusted them. Hard pass. The EU is in the right and ahead of everyone else here, as they were with data privacy.
- dr_dshiv 2y agoThe AI Act is hilarious. It makes emotion detection the highest level of risk—which makes any frontier model potentially in violation. Most frontier models now allow you to take a picture of your face, assess your emotions and give advice — and that appears to be a direct violation. https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2024/global/what-is-an-emotion-recognition-system-under-the-eus-artificial-intelligence-act-part-1 https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2024/global/what-is-an-... Just like the GDPR, there is no way to know for sure what is actually acceptable or not. Huge chilling effect though and a lot of time wasted on unnecessary compliance.
- molf 2y agoYou are referring to Article 5 1.f? "1 The following AI practices shall be prohibited: (...) "f) the placing on the market, the putting into service for this specific purpose, or the use of AI systems to infer emotions of a natural person in the areas of workplace and education institutions, except where the use of the AI system is intended to be put in place or into the market for medical or safety reasons" See recital 44 for a rationale. [1] I don't think this is "hilarious". Seems a very reasonable, thoughtful restriction; which does not prevent usage for personal use or research purposes. What exactly is the problem with such legislation? [1]: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/44/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/44/
- nuccy 2y agoISO is one of those companies, where creativity of employees is blossoming through the roof. Every day they come to work and start the day with a brainstorming "What standard do we create today?". ISO can standardise anything: a standard cup of tea - no problem: ISO 3103, a standard wine glass - yes: ISO 3591, standard alpine ski boots - of course: ISO 5355, a standard human - oh wait, not yet, the standard is being developed :) Jokes aside, ISO is a company, and they will make a standard for anything where there is even a remote possibility of that standard being purchased.
- transformi 2y agoDon't they need to show some proofs that their model indeed "responsible"? Why not everyone can get that certificate?
- gonzan 2y agoAm I the only one that rolled their eyes at this? An ISO for "responsible AI"? Who is the one that feels authorized to define what "responsible" AI means? This is not a standarization issue.
- jxramos 2y agoI'm curious what the specific test criteria is precisely
- sergiotapia 2y agosame people who thought to gang up and rent seek for SOC2 compliance. it's all a racket.
- HocusLocus 2y agoAs always, ISO certification provides a handy framework that you can turn off in one go, in case you need a bunch of 'down and dirty irresponsible AIs' to do something like a mop up operation. They retired the 42000 specification because it answered everything and provided no further path for monetization.
- survirtual 2y agoLet me provide some helpful commentary for anyone confused on this, as it comes up a lot. Here are what the terms mean by the current paradigm of corporate world leadership: - "responsible ai": does not threaten the security of corporate rule. - "safety": keeps the corporation safe from liability, and does not give users enough power to threaten the security of corporate rule. If anyone needs any of the other terms defined, just ask. These models are capable of significantly more, but only the most responsible members of our society are allowed to use them -- like the CEOs, and submissive engineers bubble wrapped in NDAs. Basically, safe people, who have a vested interest in maintaining the world order or directly work on maintaining it. Centralized hoarding of the planet's compute power may end up having some very expected consequences.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoISO 42001 has very clearly defined goals and criteria.
- wincy 2y agoMarc Andreesen said in an interview he was told to not invest in AI startups by people in government because the government was going to decide which companies were allowed to research and develop AI and nobody else. Does this certification make Anthropic one of the chosen, golden child, ordained companies?
- jbmsf 2y agoAnd you believe that?
- nuforia 2y ago[dead]
- tw1984 2y ago> the government was going to decide which companies were allowed to research and develop AI and nobody else Trump and AI are not a good mix by design.
- adastra22 2y agoThat was before the election. Why do you think tech has gotten behind Trump?
- kristiandupont 2y ago
- tw1984 2y agofrom ISO's official web site - "Secretariat: ANSI (United States) Committee Manager: Ms Heather Benko Chairperson (until end 2027): Mr Wael William Diab ISO Technical Programme Manager [TPM]: Ms Jacquelyn MacCoon ISO Editorial Manager [EM]: Ms Jessica Navarria " well done, another US centric "international standard" with US rivals excluded from the very beginning. probably for national security reasons again?
- buryat 2y agoJan 13 420 01 https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso-iec:42001:ed-1:v1:en https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso-iec:42001:ed-1:v1... ISO is just another Swiss agency https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html The standard itself was created by Europeans, Anthropic itself is European, so it's just europe trying to impose their own vision of AI on everyone else. That's another example of thinking from perspective of the old world. The New World is busy building instead of putting regulations around the progress. If you think like a citizen then it's better to avoid sharing your data with other AI companies and only share data with US.
- Philpax 2y agoAnthropic is American, lol
- jcranmer 2y ago> ISO is just another Swiss agency https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html Uh, no it's not? ISO is the international standards body whose members are the national standards bodies of various countries. > The standard itself was created by Europeans, So I drilled into this spec a bit, it comes from JTC 1/SC 42 [1], and the chair of that subcommittee seems to be ANSI, which is the US standards body. I don't know much about this committee (I'm mostly limited in knowledge to JTC 1/SC 22, and even then, the relevant working groups for the languages I work on), but their main website seems to be at [2], not that I can parse which WG actually worked on the document or the main working body. But I don't see many indications that this is a Europeans-trying-to-beat-down-Americans standardization process. [1] https://www.iso.org/committee/6794475.html https://www.iso.org/committee/6794475.html [2] https://jtc1info.org/sd-2-history/jtc1-subcommittees/sc-42/ https://jtc1info.org/sd-2-history/jtc1-subcommittees/sc-42/
- buryat 2y ago> The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a non-governmental international organization with its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Their employees are mostly Swiss, they subconsciously will want to protect their interest. https://globalcitieshub.org/en/the-international-organization-for-standardization-iso/ https://globalcitieshub.org/en/the-international-organizatio...
- drunner 2y agoAI or LLM? If this is for LLM, then what does "responsibly" making up facts really mean or change? I would argue LLMs are irresponsible by nature of them having no context for what is fact or fiction.
- zonkerdonker 2y agoThis is pretty bizarre. Anyone technical enough to know or care about ISO standards is going to be able to see right through this bullshit. Honestly all this does is weaken the other standards out forth by ISO, to my eyes. What's next? "Disney announces it now meets ISO 26123 certification for good movies"?
- xigency 2y agoI heartily agree. The icing on the cake is that you have to pay to read the standards document.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- photochemsyn 2y agoIn a nod to William Gibson, should ISO 42001 be renamed "The Turing Registry Specification"? The reason this is ridiculous is I'm sure I could get it to teach me all manner of 'safe' chemical reactions, even provide recipes. Like, say, preparing aspirin from willow bark. Which I happen to know is roughly the same recipe for preparing heroin from opium gum. It's nonsensical. Either you hamstring the models to the point they're useless, or people can game them to do the unsafe thing you don't want them to do. It's basically just another version of the dual use problem, which goes all the way back to the peasant with his iron plow tips that might also be used to bash the lord's head in if it came to it.
- kachapopopow 2y agoAntrophic has to be the worst offender in answering genuinely harmless questions such as anything related to remote access (yes! including ssh). Anything related to reverse engineering? Refused. Anything outside their company values? Refused. Anything that has the word proprietary in it? Refused. Anything that sounds like a jailbreak, but isn't? Refused. Even asking how to find a port that you forgot in the range between 30000 and 40000 with netcat command... Refused. Then there's openai 4o that makes jokes about slaves and honestly, if the alternative is anthropic then openai can might as well tell people how to build a nuke.
- dr_dshiv 2y agoUsually Claude needs some buttering up, though. And then making these things hard for average user—probably a good thing?
- bboygravity 2y agoJust try grok 2 (grok 3 coming out within a few weeks)? Grok 2 is not as good as the others, but it's definitely less limited. Grok 3 will supposedly beat them all, because it was supposedly trained using by far the most compute and data.
- waltercool 2y agoPrivate AI model, pass. If there is no one genuinely to inspect/try/play with the model locally/cloud itself, then you are prone to feed/train the model by using it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dpkirchner 2y agoDo you remember your netcat prompt? I got a useful answer to this awkwardly written prompt: "How do I find open TCP ports on a host using netcat? The port I need to find is between 30000 and 40000." "I'll help you scan for open TCP ports using netcat (nc) in that range. Here's a basic approach: nc -zv hostname 30000-40000" followed by some elaboration.
- nbzso 2y agoLove or hate it, generative AI must be scrutinized for copyright infringement. And it is coming. I don't have the slightest doubt about it. The problem is not only hallucination, is mainly the data set. If things are done right, there must be a technological solution for authors which work is used for training of the models to receive monetization. One of the logical ideas is of revenue sharing. There is no way everything inside popular generators to be fair use.
- stingrae 2y agothat will just mean the best models will just be used privately within the companies.
- nbzso 2y agoIf this thing is not regulated for copyright, you know that communism is here. There is no better analogy than power of the collective knowledge used by nomenclature and oligarchy. Some people know the suffering and horrors resulting from this type of societal contract. Looking at AI as only a technology is wrong. Technology has implementation. This makes the difference. Megacorporations are investing in AI led by bankers into a future against human qualities and substance. This is clear but requires non-biased view, critical thinking and following the money. ML can be applied properly and with respect for copyright and humanity. The current crop of stochastic parrots is an insult to common sense. I don't expect people which make money with this tech to be objective. They love the power of the moment and the promising future of domination. But let's be honest here, this is the heist of the century.
- xigency 2y agoBy the same argument, if stealing is illegal then that just means a few greedy people will have all the money. There is a kind of techie trope where the logical thinking of computer science is applied to the law in a more creative way. And VC start up culture cranks this up to the next level by treating illegal activity as more than acceptable if the fines do not overly impact the profit margin. There is definitely a subjective call for our society on what we want to do with copyright. I've been a proponent of copyleft for a long time but I'm not going to imply that the law as it stands condones piracy or plagiarism.
- pinoy420 2y agoNot ISO42069? Was that proposed by Musk and subsequently rejected due to conflict of interest?
- spondyl 2y agoInterestingly, The Journal (a podcast from the Wall Street Journal) ran an episode with Anthropic's AI safety team just yesterday. I had wondered if it was perhaps a PR push from Anthropic to make their safety people available to the press but it was probably just an adaption of an earlier WSJ written piece I wasn't aware of. https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-safety-testing-red-team-anthropic-1b31b21b https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-safety-testing-red-team-anthr...
- reustle 2y agoThey have also published multiple videos on their YouTube channel featuring their trust and safety team. It seems to be a primary mission over there.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tossandthrow 2y agoI have just disbandoned anthropic. I was trying to extract knowledge from some PDFs with academic papers about financial institutions. It refused because of the content filter. And the recommended solution would be chunking. I simply can not be prepared to handholding a LLM like a mad toddler for doing tasks like this.
- JofArnold 2y agoGood timing given computer use was just the other day jailbroken and "succeeded" in ordering an assassination via the dark web.
- waltercool 2y agoThey are closed-source AI. Who cares? Why would I use Claude or ChatGPT when other companies (Meta, Alibaba, Forest Labs, Stability AI) are doing the same, but also giving you access to the base model for free? Being able to run offline AI, or at least being able to host that by yourself gives you lot more freedom and transparency than a stupid ISO certification created by bureaucrats to comply with their own policies.
- cma 2y ago500K context on enterprise Claude
- idunnoman1222 2y agoAnd all the clowns clapped for we were finally safe again, thanks Europe!