11 ms·
From the laws text: For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: (1) ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to ope
by spacemanspiff01 2y ago
From the laws text:
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:
(1) ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments; Related: Recital 12
https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/3/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/3/
https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/12/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/12/
So, it seems like yes, software, if it is non-deterministic enough would qualify. My impression is that software that simply takes "if your income is below this threshold, we deny you a credit card." Would be fine, but somewhere along the line when your decision tree grows large enough, it probably changes.
- gamedever 2y agoSo no more predicting the weather with sensors?
- lubsch 2y agoWhich of the criteria of the risk levels that will be regulated which are listed in the article do you think would include weather predictions?
- _bin_ 2y agosomething like a long-term weather forecast could lead to declining to issue an insurance policy for someone's home or automobile in an area. it could significantly impact the price. make it publicly available, and an insurance company could use that prediction. clearly an unacceptable risk
- jeltz 2y agoDo you use biometric data to predict the weather?
- throwaway743 2y agoI trained a CV model to tell me the temp when I stand in front of the mirror based on if my nipples are hard or not, and how hard or soft they are.
- dingnuts 2y agoif you set up your thermostat to respond to the output from your model you could get it to turn up the temperature by pinching your nipples
- spunker540 2y agoToo bad the EU will never experience such innovation
- throwaway743 2y agoThat's fucking brilliant!
- moi2388 2y agoAh, it detects if it’s a bit nippy? ;)
- throwaway743 2y agoI like your thinking B)
- scottcha 2y agoI have a project which uses weather info to predict avalanche risk. Reading the articles its hard for me to understand whether this would apply or not but my feeling is it might (If I ever need to run this in the EU I would talk to a lawyer). https://openavalancheproject.org https://openavalancheproject.org
- Filligree 2y agoAs it should; people would use it to make life-or-death decisions, so that application is high-risk. We already have ways to predict avalanche risk that are well understood and explainable. There should be a high threshold on replacing that.
- abdullahkhalids 2y agoSeems very reasonable. Not all software has the same risk profile, and autonomous+adaptive software certainly have a more dangerous profile than simpler software, and should be regulated differently.
- johndhi 2y agoWhat? Why? Shouldn't those same use cases all be banned regardless of what tech is used to build them?
- abdullahkhalids 2y agoUsing a machine, instrument or technology for some intended outcome will nevertheless have a distribution of outcomes. Some good some bad. A kitchen knife will usually cut food, but will occasionally cut your finger. If maliciously used the bad outcomes become a lot more. Two different machines can be designed for the same use case, but the possible bad outcomes in either "correct" use or malicious use of the two machines can be very different. So it is reasonable to ban the one which has unacceptable bad outcomes. For example, while both a bicycle and a dirt bike are mobility vehicles, a park may allow one and ban the other.
- ImageXav 2y agoNot necessarily. Interpretability of a system used to make decisions is more important in some contexts than others. For example, a black box AI used to make judiciary decisions would completely remove transparency from a system that requires careful oversight. It seems to me that the intent of the legislation is to avoid such cases from popping up, so that people can contest decisions made that would have a material impact on them, and that organisations can provide traceable reasoning.
- kenjackson 2y agoIs a black box AI system less transparent than 12 jurors? It would seem anytime the system is human judgement, an AI system would be as transparent (or nearly so). It would seem accountable would only be higher in systems where humans were not part of the decision making process.
- btown 2y agoNotably, Recital 12 says the definition "should not cover systems that are based on the rules defined solely by natural persons to automatically execute operations." https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Glossary/UKPracticalLaw/I13f404e5785211e79bef99c0ee06c731?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29 https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Glossary/UKPracti... describes a bit of how recitals interact with the operating law; they're explicitly used for disambiguation. So your hip new AI startup that's actually just hand-written regexes under the hood is likely safe for now! (Not a lawyer, this is neither legal advice nor startup advice.)
- hotstickyballs 2y agoIt doesn't seem to be clear to me whether auto-formatted code (or even generated code from copilot for example) would be classified as AI.
- raziel2p 2y agounless your AI generated code gets deployed into production without any human supervision/approval, probably not.
- philipov 2y agoIt seems to me the key phrase in that definition is "that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment" - If your code doesn't change its own operation without needing to be redeployed, it's not AI under this definition. If adaptation requires deployment, such as pushing a new version, that's not AI.
- maxrmk 2y agoI'm not sure what they intended this to apply to. LLM based systems don't change their own operation (at least, not more so than anything with a database). We'll probably have to wait until they fine someone a zillion dollars to figure out what they actually meant.
- 2y ago
- cabalamat 2y ago> and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment So if an AI can't change its weights after deployment, it's not really an AI? That doesn't make sense. As for the other criteria, they're so vague I think a thermostat might apply.
- logifail 2y ago> they're so vague I think a thermostat might apply Quite. One wonders if the people who came up with this have any actual understanding of the technology they're attempting to regulate.
- sofixa 2y ago> As for the other criteria, they're so vague I think a thermostat might apply. As long as the thermostat doesn't control people's lives, that's fine.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoIt _may_ exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, which would not change it being AI. I think that is the right reading of the definition.
- stubish 2y agoKeyword 'may'. A learning thermostat would apply, say one that uses historical records to predict changes in temperature and preemptively adjusts. And it would be low risk and unregulated in most cases. But attach to a self-heating crib or premature baby incubator and that would jump to high risk and you might have to prove it is safe.
- butlike 2y agoSo if the thermostat jumps to 105 during the night, that's not considered 'high-risk?'
- stubish 2y agoMaybe you are right and it is still risky for sleeping adults. In any case, even high risk the standard that needs to be followed might be as simple as 'must have a physical cutoff at 30C'.
- surfingdino 2y agoGood. You cannot have a functioning society where decisions are made in a non-deterministic way. Especially when those decision deviate from agreed protocols (laws, bylaws, contracts, etc.).
- zelphirkalt 2y agoHm, not a too bad definition. Seems like written by some people who know what machine learning is.