10 ms·

Since the license ban the use and installation in EU, I would ask: It is possible to formulate a license that claims: "The restriction A is motivated to protect

Since the license ban the use and installation in EU, I would ask: It is possible to formulate a license that claims: "The restriction A is motivated to protect our ass but we will not directly or indirectly enforce it against you"?, Such kind of phrasing in the license could be categorized or called "isolating clause" but I don't know if judges could consider it a circumvention of the law. Edited several times, I should add: IANAL, but this sounds similar to meta releasing llama weights. I think that the spirit of the European law is to control concrete uses of AI and not a broad distribution of weights and architecture. So my question is: Does the EU AI act ban this distribution?, I think it provides more competition and options for Europeans. Edited: Thinking a little more, installing open weights could allow backdoors (in the form of a way to manipulate intelligent agents via specials prompts designated to control the system), so perhaps from a national security point of view some care should be taken (but I personally hate that). So another question: Is there a way to control if open weights can create back doors (via prompt injection)?, I recall a paper in which prompt by symbols like 0?,#2! could put the system in a state in which one can read information that the LLM is asked to hide (that is a well known attack available to those that know the weights). Another question: Is fine tuning or Lora a way to eliminate o amilliorate such prompt attacks?, is there any python library to defend against such attacks. Download - install - modify by fine tune or lora - now you are protected.

seydor 1y ago
It's not up to Huawei to tell EU citizens what to do. In fact they did not need to add this restriction to their license at all. As EU citizens we shoud know the laws of the land and protect ourselves by avoiding using these models like the plague.
- Fluorescence 1y ago
  IANAL but the EU legislation is very broad about what it covers e.g. "AI systems should fall within the scope of this Regulation even when they are neither placed on the market, nor put into service, nor used in the Union." I don't really understand the limits of it's scope e.g. the difference between making a system available vs. controlling how it's used is not clear to me. I don't think you can escape the regulation of high-risk uses by offering a "general purpose" AI with no controls on how it's used. In terms of the open-source nature - I can see it being treated like giving away any other regulated product e.g. medication, cars, safety equipment etc. The lack of cost won't transfer the liability from the supplier to the consumer. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52...
  - foursilly 1y ago
    Thanks for all that information, I agree with you that the EU legislation is very broad. In my opinion, this justifies or motivates the inclusion of the ban in the EU.
    - hammock 1y ago
      What happens if you ignore overly broad EU regulations? Does your home country observe the EU’s violation of its sovereignty and throw you in a home country jail? Does Brussels throw you in an EU jail? What country hosts the EU jail? Not to sound too snarky (just a little snarky), I’m just curious how it all works.
      - coliveira 1y ago
        As always, EU and USA courts will act as if they had jurisdiction over the rest of the world and motivate bans and similar measures against other countries.
      - bee_rider 1y ago
        Realistically lots of multi-national companies have an EU presence, so concerns about “violating sovereignty” are sorta moot. Huawei probably wants to do business in the EU which requires following EU law. As an aside: in general a sovereign country can do whatever they want in their own territory, this includes the right of the country to bind itself to treaties. So in your hypothetical, > Does your home country observe the EU’s violation of its sovereignty and throw you in a home country jail? This doesn’t look like a violation of sovereignty to me; the non-EU has decided to enforce an EU law. Why? I don’t know, maybe it makes business easier for the multinational companies of the non-EU country. Countries can also do things like apply secondary sanctions to an entity. So, again hypothetically, the EU doesn’t need to be able to enforce a ruling against you. They can make you toxic to anyone who wants to do business in the EU.
      - lawlessone 1y ago
        >What happens if you ignore overly broad EU regulations? Not much It's usually up to the the member states to implement the EU regulation. As you can see from Hungary with Orban in recent years though the EU's response is slow and lacking. When there is consensus things can move a lot faster though.
- paganel 1y ago
  > protect ourselves "Protect" ourselves against whom? I'm a EU citizen (unfortunately), and I'm fully on board with China against Brussels. Which is to say, don't try to speak for everyone in this God-forsaken so-called union.
  - pshirshov 1y ago
    > unfortunately Apply for russian citizenship at their consulate then, they run programs for people of your mindset.
HPsquared 1y ago
For security, I'd always treat ANY LLM generated code as untrusted until reviewed.
- foursilly 1y ago
  The problem is with AI agents when you give them some control.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    Those should also be treated as untrusted.
- jandrese 1y ago
  100%, which makes me nervous when I hear stories about AIs that write and execute their own code. It's just asking for trouble.
  - tartoran 1y ago
    They'll blame it on AI from now on. This could have serious implications and further erosion of any responsibility tech companies have will probably accelerate.
    - natebc 1y ago
      Somewhat anecdotally this year the nVidia GPU drivers have had a lot of issues. It made me wonder how much of their own second degree dogfood they're applying to creating those and maybe that's to blame for the state of those drivers recently.
- coliveira 1y ago
  That's correct, independent of the source of the LLM.
chaosharmonic 1y ago
> Since the license ban the use and installation in EU, I would ask: It is possible to formulate a license that claims: "The restriction A is motivated to protect our ass but we will not directly or indirectly enforce it against you"?, Such kind of phrasing in the license could be categorized or called "isolating clause" but I don't know if judges could consider it a circumvention of the law. Maybe not the exact thing you're talking about, but that description reminds me of the Alliance for Open Media -- their codec licenses are royalty-free, but the same terms revoke your usage rights if you sue anyone for the use of these formats.

seydor 1y ago

It's not up to Huawei to tell EU citizens what to do. In fact they did not need to add this restriction to their license at all. As EU citizens we shoud know the laws of the land and protect ourselves by avoiding using these models like the plague.

Fluorescence 1y ago
IANAL but the EU legislation is very broad about what it covers e.g. "AI systems should fall within the scope of this Regulation even when they are neither placed on the market, nor put into service, nor used in the Union." I don't really understand the limits of it's scope e.g. the difference between making a system available vs. controlling how it's used is not clear to me. I don't think you can escape the regulation of high-risk uses by offering a "general purpose" AI with no controls on how it's used. In terms of the open-source nature - I can see it being treated like giving away any other regulated product e.g. medication, cars, safety equipment etc. The lack of cost won't transfer the liability from the supplier to the consumer. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52...
- foursilly 1y ago
  Thanks for all that information, I agree with you that the EU legislation is very broad. In my opinion, this justifies or motivates the inclusion of the ban in the EU.
  - hammock 1y ago
    What happens if you ignore overly broad EU regulations? Does your home country observe the EU’s violation of its sovereignty and throw you in a home country jail? Does Brussels throw you in an EU jail? What country hosts the EU jail? Not to sound too snarky (just a little snarky), I’m just curious how it all works.
    - coliveira 1y ago
      As always, EU and USA courts will act as if they had jurisdiction over the rest of the world and motivate bans and similar measures against other countries.
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      Realistically lots of multi-national companies have an EU presence, so concerns about “violating sovereignty” are sorta moot. Huawei probably wants to do business in the EU which requires following EU law. As an aside: in general a sovereign country can do whatever they want in their own territory, this includes the right of the country to bind itself to treaties. So in your hypothetical, > Does your home country observe the EU’s violation of its sovereignty and throw you in a home country jail? This doesn’t look like a violation of sovereignty to me; the non-EU has decided to enforce an EU law. Why? I don’t know, maybe it makes business easier for the multinational companies of the non-EU country. Countries can also do things like apply secondary sanctions to an entity. So, again hypothetically, the EU doesn’t need to be able to enforce a ruling against you. They can make you toxic to anyone who wants to do business in the EU.
    - lawlessone 1y ago
      >What happens if you ignore overly broad EU regulations? Not much It's usually up to the the member states to implement the EU regulation. As you can see from Hungary with Orban in recent years though the EU's response is slow and lacking. When there is consensus things can move a lot faster though.
paganel 1y ago
> protect ourselves "Protect" ourselves against whom? I'm a EU citizen (unfortunately), and I'm fully on board with China against Brussels. Which is to say, don't try to speak for everyone in this God-forsaken so-called union.
- pshirshov 1y ago
  > unfortunately Apply for russian citizenship at their consulate then, they run programs for people of your mindset.

HPsquared 1y ago

For security, I'd always treat ANY LLM generated code as untrusted until reviewed.

foursilly 1y ago
The problem is with AI agents when you give them some control.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Those should also be treated as untrusted.
jandrese 1y ago
100%, which makes me nervous when I hear stories about AIs that write and execute their own code. It's just asking for trouble.
- tartoran 1y ago
  They'll blame it on AI from now on. This could have serious implications and further erosion of any responsibility tech companies have will probably accelerate.
  - natebc 1y ago
    Somewhat anecdotally this year the nVidia GPU drivers have had a lot of issues. It made me wonder how much of their own second degree dogfood they're applying to creating those and maybe that's to blame for the state of those drivers recently.
coliveira 1y ago
That's correct, independent of the source of the LLM.

chaosharmonic 1y ago

> Since the license ban the use and installation in EU, I would ask: It is possible to formulate a license that claims: "The restriction A is motivated to protect our ass but we will not directly or indirectly enforce it against you"?, Such kind of phrasing in the license could be categorized or called "isolating clause" but I don't know if judges could consider it a circumvention of the law. Maybe not the exact thing you're talking about, but that description reminds me of the Alliance for Open Media -- their codec licenses are royalty-free, but the same terms revoke your usage rights if you sue anyone for the use of these formats.