31 ms·
Am 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
by gonzan 2y ago
Am 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.
- arresin 2y agoNot the only one. We all know this about anti competition.