12 ms·

Not just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of practice is voluntary and goes

Not just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of practice is voluntary and goes beyond what is in the act itself. EU published it in a way to say that there would be less scrutiny if you voluntarily sign up for this code of practice. Meta would anyway face scrutiny on all ends, so does not seem to a plausible case to sign something voluntary. One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For open source, it's a very hard requirement[1]. > GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works. [1] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-releases-first-draft-of-general-purpose-ai-code-of-practice?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-r...

dmix 1y ago
Lovely when they try to regulate a burgeoning market before we have any idea what the market is going to look like in a couple years.
- remram 1y ago
  The whole point of regulating it is to shape what it will look like in a couple of years.
  - dmix 1y ago
    Regulators often barely grasp how current markets function and they are supposed to be futurists now too? Government regulatory interests almost always end up lining up with protecting entrenched interests, so it's essentially asking for a slow moving group of the same mega companies. Which is very much what Europes market looks like today. Stasis and shifting to a stagnating middle.
    - krainboltgreene 1y ago
      So the solution is to allow the actual entrenched interests to determine the future of things when they also barely grasp how the current markets function and are currently proclaiming to be futurists?
      - betaby 1y ago
        Won't somebody please think of the children?
        johnisgood 1y ago
        Yes, a common rhetoric, and terrorism and national security.
      - buggyinout 1y ago
        They’re demanding collective conversation. You don’t have to be involved if you prefer to be asocial except to post impotent rage online. Same way the pols aren’t futurists and perfect neither is anyone else. Everyone should sit at the table and discuss this like adults. You want to go live in the hills alone, go for it, Dick Proenneke. Society is people working collectively.
      - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
        The best way for "entrenched interests" to stifle competition is to buy/encourage regulation that keeps everybody else out of their sandbox pre-emptively. For reference, see every highly-regulated industry everywhere. You think Sam Altman was in testifying to the US Congress begging for AI regulation because he's just a super nice guy?
        goatlover 1y ago
        Regulation exists because of monopolistic practices and abuses in the early 20th century.
        1y ago
  - olalonde 1y ago
    You're both right, and that's exactly how early regulation often ends up stifling innovation. Trying to shape a market too soon tends to lock in assumptions that later prove wrong.
    - mycall 1y ago
      Depends what those assumptions are. If by protecting humans from AI gross negligence, then the assumptions are predetermined to be siding towards human normals (just one example). Lets hope logic and understanding of the long term situation proceeds the arguments in the rulesets.
      - dmix 1y ago
        You're just guessing as much as anyone. Almost every generation in history has had doomers predicting the fall of their corner of civilization from some new thing. From religion schisms, printing presses, radio, TV, advertisements, the internet, etc. You can look at some of the earliest writings by English priests in the 1500s predicting social decay and destruction of society which would sound exactly like social media posts in 2025 about AI. We should at a minimum under the problem space before restricting it, especially given the nature of policy being extremely slow to change (see: copyright).
        esperent 1y ago
        I'd urge you to read a book like Black Swan, or study up on statistics. Doomers have been wrong about completely different doom scenarios in the past (+), but it says nothing about to this new scenario. If you're doing statistics in your head about it, you're wrong. We can't use scenarios from the past to make predictions about completely novel scenarios like thinking computers. (+) although they were very close to being right about nuclear doom, and may well be right about climate change doom.
        rpdillon 1y ago
        I'd like for you to expand your point on understanding statistics better. I think I have a very good understanding of statistics, but I don't see how it relates to your point. Your point is fundamentally philosophical, which is you can't use the past to predict the future. But that's actually a fairly reductive point in this context. GP's point is that simply making an argument about why everything will fail is not sufficient to have it be true. So we need to see something significantly more compelling than a bunch of arguments about why it's going to be really bad to really believe it, since we always get arguments about why things are really, really bad.
  - felipeerias 1y ago
    The experience with other industries like cars (specially EV) shows that the ability of EU regulators to shape global and home markets is a lot more limited than they like to think.
    - imachine1980_ 1y ago
      Not really china make big policy bet a decade early and win the battle the put the whole government to buy this new tech before everyone else, forcing buses to be electric if you want the federal level thumbs up, or the lottery system for example. So I disagree, probably Europe will be even more behind in ev if they doesn't push eu manufacturers to invest so heavily in the industry. You can se for example than for legacy manufacturers the only ones in the top ten are Europeans being 3 out of 10 companies, not Japanese or Korean for example, and in Europe Volkswagen already overtake Tesla in sales Q1 for example and Audi isn't that much away also.
  - jabjq 1y ago
    What will happen, like every time a market is regulated in the EU, is that the market will move on without the EU.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    If the regulators were qualified to work in the industry, then guess what: they'd be working in the industry.
  - TacticalCoder 1y ago
    [dead]
  - energy123 1y ago
    The point is to stop and deter market failure, not anticipate hypothetical market failure
  - adastra22 1y ago
    That has never worked.
- ekianjo 1y ago
  they dont want a marlet. They want total control, as usual for control freaks.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- amelius 1y ago
  We know what the market will look like. Quasi monopoly and basic user rights violated.
- ulfw 1y ago
  Regulating it while the cat is out of the bag leads to monopolistic conglomerates like Meta and Google. Meta shouldn't have been allowed to usurp instagram and whatsapp, Google shouldn't have been allowed to bring Youtube into the fold. Now it's too late to regulate a way out of this.
  - pbh101 1y ago
    It’s easy to say this in hindsight, though this is the first time I think I’ve seen someone say that about YouTube even though I’ve seen it about Instagram and WhatsApp a lot. The YouTube deal was a lot earlier than Instagram, 2006. Google was way smaller than now. iPhone wasn’t announced. And it wasn’t two social networks merging. Very hard to see how regulators could have the clairvoyance to see into this specific future and its counter-factual.
  - user5534762135 1y ago
    >Now it's too late to regulate a way out of this. Technically untrue, monopoly busting is a kind of regulation. I wouldn't bet on it happening on any meaningful scale, given how strongly IT benefits from economies of scale, but we could be surprised.
- rapatel0 1y ago
  I literally lived this with GDPR. In the beginning every one ran around pretending to understand what it meant. There were a ton of consultants and lawyers that basically made up stuff that barely made sense. They grifted money out of startups by taking the most aggressive interpretation and selling policy templates. In the end the regulation was diluted to something that made sense(ish) but that process took about 4 years. It also slowed down all enterprise deals because no one knew if a deal was going to be against GDPR and the lawyers defaulted to “no” in those orgs. Asking regulators to understand and shape market evolution in AI is basically asking them to trade stocks by reading company reports written in mandarin.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > In the end the regulation was diluted to something that made sense(ish) but that process took about 4 years. Is the same regulation that was introduced in 2016. The only people who pretend not to understand it are those who think that selling user data to 2000+ "partners" is privacy
  - CalRobert 1y ago
    The main thing is the EU basically didn’t enforce it. I was really excited for data portability but it hasn’t really come to pass
- verisimi 1y ago
  Exactly. No anonymity, no thought crime, lots of filters to screen out bad misinformation, etc. Regulate it.
- troupo 1y ago
  > before we have any idea what the market is going to look like in a couple years. Oh, we already know large chunks of it, and the regulations explicitly address that. If the chest-beating crowd would be presented with these regulations piecemeal, without ever mentioning EU, they'd probably be in overwhelming support of each part. But since they don't care to read anything and have an instinctive aversion to all things regulatory and most things EU, we get the boos and the jeers
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
t0mas88 1y ago
Sounds like a reasonable guideline to me. Even for open source models, you can add a license term that requires users of the open source model to take "appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works" This is European law, not US. Reasonable means reasonable and judges here are expected to weigh each side's interests and come to a conclusion. Not just a literal interpretation of the law.
- deanc 1y ago
  Except that it’s seemingly impossible to prevent against prompt injection. The cat is out the bag. Much like a lot of other legislation (eg cookie law, being responsible for user generated content when you have millions of it posted per day) it’s entirely impractical albeit well-meaning.
  - lcnielsen 1y ago
    I don't think the cookie law is that impractical? It's easy to comply with by just not storing non-essential user information. It would have been completely nondisruptive if platforms agreed to respect users' defaults via browser settings, and then converged on a common config interface. It was made impractical by ad platforms and others who decided to use dark patterns, FUD and malicious compliance to deceive users into agreeing to be tracked.
    - deanc 1y ago
      It is impractical for me as a user. I have to click on a notice on every website on the internet before interacting with it - often which are very obtuse and don’t have a “reject all” button but a “manage my choices” button which takes to an even more convoluted menu. Instead of exactly as you say: a global browser option. As someone who has had to implement this crap repeatedly - I can’t even begin to imagine the amount of global time that has been wasted implementing this by everyone, fixing mistakes related to it and more importantly by users having to interact with it.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
zizee 1y ago
It doesn't seem unreasonable. If you train a model that can reliably reproduce thousands/millions of copyrighted works, you shouldn't be distributibg it. If it were just regular software that had that capability, would it be allowed? Just because it's a fancy Ai model it is ok?
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  I have a Xerox machine that can reliably reproduce copyrighted works. Is that a problem, too? Blaming tools for the actions of their users is stupid.
  - threetonesun 1y ago
    If the Xerox machine had all of the copyrighted works in it and you just had to ask it nicely to print them I think you'd say the tool is in the wrong there, not the user.
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      You'd think wrong.
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      LLMs do not have all copyrighted works in them. In some cases they can be prompted to guess a number of tokens that follow an excerpt from another work. They do not contain all copyrighted works, though. That’s an incorrect understanding.
    - monetus 1y ago
      Are there any LLMs available with a, "give me copyrighted material" button? I don't think that is how they work. Commercial use of someone's image also already has laws concerning that as far as I know, don't they?
    - zettabomb 1y ago
      Xerox already went through that lawsuit and won, which is why photocopiers still exist. The tool isn't in the wrong for being told to print out the copyrighted works. The user still had to make the conscious decision to copy that particular work. Hence, still the user's fault.
m3sta 1y ago
The quoted text makes sense when you understand that the EU provides a carveout for training on copyright protected works without a license. It's quite an elegant balance they've suggested despite the challenges it fails to avoid.
- Oras 1y ago
  Is that true? How can they decide to wipe out the intellectual property for an individual or entity? It’s not theirs to give it away.
  - elsjaako 1y ago
    Copyright is not a god given right. It's an economic incentive created by government to make desired behavior (writing an publishing books) profitable.
    - kriops 1y ago
      Yes it is. In every sense of the phrase, except the literal.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - Zafira 1y ago
        A lot of cultures have not historically considered artists’ rights to be a thing and have had it essentially imposed on them as a requirement to participate in global trade.
        kolinko 1y ago
        Even in Europe copyright was protected only for the last 250 years, and over the last 100 years it’s been constantly updated to take into consideration new technologies.
badsectoracula 1y ago
> One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way AFAICT the actual text of the act[0] does not mention anything like that. The closest to what you describe is part of the chapter on copyright of the Code of Practice[1], however the code does not add any new requirements to the act (it is not even part of the act itself). What it does is to present a way (which does not mean it is the only one) to comply with the act's requirements (as a relevant example, the act requires to respect machine-readable opt-out mechanisms when training but doesn't specify which ones, but the code of practice explicitly mentions respecting robots.txt during web scraping). The part about copyright outputs in the code is actually (measure 1.4): > (1) In order to mitigate the risk that a downstream AI system, into which a general-purpose AI model is integrated, generates output that may infringe rights in works or other subject matter protected by Union law on copyright or related rights, Signatories commit: > a) to implement appropriate and proportionate technical safeguards to prevent their models from generating outputs that reproduce training content protected by Union law on copyright and related rights in an infringing manner, and > b) to prohibit copyright-infringing uses of a model in their acceptable use policy, terms and conditions, or other equivalent documents, or in case of general-purpose AI models released under free and open source licenses to alert users to the prohibition of copyright infringing uses of the model in the documentation accompanying the model without prejudice to the free and open source nature of the license. > (2) This Measure applies irrespective of whether a Signatory vertically integrates the model into its own AI system(s) or whether the model is provided to another entity based on contractual relations. Keep in mind that "Signatories" here is whoever signed the Code of Practice: obviously if i make my own AI model and do not sign that code of practice myself (but i still follow the act requirements), someone picking up my AI model and signing the Code of Practice themselves doesn't obligate me to follow it too. That'd be like someone releasing a plugin for Photoshop under the GPL and then demanding Adobe release Photoshop's source code. As for open source models, the "(1b)" above is quite clear (for open source models that want to use this code of practice - which they do not have to!) that all they have to do is to mention in their documentation that their users should not generate copyright infringing content with them. In fact the act has a lot of exceptions for open-source models. AFAIK Meta's beef with the act is that the EU AI office (or whatever it is called, i do not remember) does not recognize Meta's AI as open source, so they do not get to benefit from those exceptions, though i'm not sure about the details here. [0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401689 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:... [1] https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/118115 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/11811...
welloktheb 1y ago
[dead]
greatgib 1y ago
It's a trojan horse, they try to do the same thing that is happening in the banking sector. By this they want AI model provider to have a strong grip on their users, so controling their usage to not risk issues with the regulator. Then, the European technocrats will be able control the whole field by being able to control the top providers, that then will overreach by controlling their users.

dmix 1y ago

Lovely when they try to regulate a burgeoning market before we have any idea what the market is going to look like in a couple years.

remram 1y ago
The whole point of regulating it is to shape what it will look like in a couple of years.
- dmix 1y ago
  Regulators often barely grasp how current markets function and they are supposed to be futurists now too? Government regulatory interests almost always end up lining up with protecting entrenched interests, so it's essentially asking for a slow moving group of the same mega companies. Which is very much what Europes market looks like today. Stasis and shifting to a stagnating middle.
  - krainboltgreene 1y ago
    So the solution is to allow the actual entrenched interests to determine the future of things when they also barely grasp how the current markets function and are currently proclaiming to be futurists?
    - betaby 1y ago
      Won't somebody please think of the children?
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        Yes, a common rhetoric, and terrorism and national security.
    - buggyinout 1y ago
      They’re demanding collective conversation. You don’t have to be involved if you prefer to be asocial except to post impotent rage online. Same way the pols aren’t futurists and perfect neither is anyone else. Everyone should sit at the table and discuss this like adults. You want to go live in the hills alone, go for it, Dick Proenneke. Society is people working collectively.
    - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
      The best way for "entrenched interests" to stifle competition is to buy/encourage regulation that keeps everybody else out of their sandbox pre-emptively. For reference, see every highly-regulated industry everywhere. You think Sam Altman was in testifying to the US Congress begging for AI regulation because he's just a super nice guy?
      - goatlover 1y ago
        Regulation exists because of monopolistic practices and abuses in the early 20th century.
        1y ago
- olalonde 1y ago
  You're both right, and that's exactly how early regulation often ends up stifling innovation. Trying to shape a market too soon tends to lock in assumptions that later prove wrong.
  - mycall 1y ago
    Depends what those assumptions are. If by protecting humans from AI gross negligence, then the assumptions are predetermined to be siding towards human normals (just one example). Lets hope logic and understanding of the long term situation proceeds the arguments in the rulesets.
    - dmix 1y ago
      You're just guessing as much as anyone. Almost every generation in history has had doomers predicting the fall of their corner of civilization from some new thing. From religion schisms, printing presses, radio, TV, advertisements, the internet, etc. You can look at some of the earliest writings by English priests in the 1500s predicting social decay and destruction of society which would sound exactly like social media posts in 2025 about AI. We should at a minimum under the problem space before restricting it, especially given the nature of policy being extremely slow to change (see: copyright).
      - esperent 1y ago
        I'd urge you to read a book like Black Swan, or study up on statistics. Doomers have been wrong about completely different doom scenarios in the past (+), but it says nothing about to this new scenario. If you're doing statistics in your head about it, you're wrong. We can't use scenarios from the past to make predictions about completely novel scenarios like thinking computers. (+) although they were very close to being right about nuclear doom, and may well be right about climate change doom.
        rpdillon 1y ago
        I'd like for you to expand your point on understanding statistics better. I think I have a very good understanding of statistics, but I don't see how it relates to your point. Your point is fundamentally philosophical, which is you can't use the past to predict the future. But that's actually a fairly reductive point in this context. GP's point is that simply making an argument about why everything will fail is not sufficient to have it be true. So we need to see something significantly more compelling than a bunch of arguments about why it's going to be really bad to really believe it, since we always get arguments about why things are really, really bad.
- felipeerias 1y ago
  The experience with other industries like cars (specially EV) shows that the ability of EU regulators to shape global and home markets is a lot more limited than they like to think.
  - imachine1980_ 1y ago
    Not really china make big policy bet a decade early and win the battle the put the whole government to buy this new tech before everyone else, forcing buses to be electric if you want the federal level thumbs up, or the lottery system for example. So I disagree, probably Europe will be even more behind in ev if they doesn't push eu manufacturers to invest so heavily in the industry. You can se for example than for legacy manufacturers the only ones in the top ten are Europeans being 3 out of 10 companies, not Japanese or Korean for example, and in Europe Volkswagen already overtake Tesla in sales Q1 for example and Audi isn't that much away also.
- jabjq 1y ago
  What will happen, like every time a market is regulated in the EU, is that the market will move on without the EU.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  If the regulators were qualified to work in the industry, then guess what: they'd be working in the industry.
- TacticalCoder 1y ago
  [dead]
- energy123 1y ago
  The point is to stop and deter market failure, not anticipate hypothetical market failure
- adastra22 1y ago
  That has never worked.
ekianjo 1y ago
they dont want a marlet. They want total control, as usual for control freaks.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
amelius 1y ago
We know what the market will look like. Quasi monopoly and basic user rights violated.
ulfw 1y ago
Regulating it while the cat is out of the bag leads to monopolistic conglomerates like Meta and Google. Meta shouldn't have been allowed to usurp instagram and whatsapp, Google shouldn't have been allowed to bring Youtube into the fold. Now it's too late to regulate a way out of this.
- pbh101 1y ago
  It’s easy to say this in hindsight, though this is the first time I think I’ve seen someone say that about YouTube even though I’ve seen it about Instagram and WhatsApp a lot. The YouTube deal was a lot earlier than Instagram, 2006. Google was way smaller than now. iPhone wasn’t announced. And it wasn’t two social networks merging. Very hard to see how regulators could have the clairvoyance to see into this specific future and its counter-factual.
- user5534762135 1y ago
  >Now it's too late to regulate a way out of this. Technically untrue, monopoly busting is a kind of regulation. I wouldn't bet on it happening on any meaningful scale, given how strongly IT benefits from economies of scale, but we could be surprised.
rapatel0 1y ago
I literally lived this with GDPR. In the beginning every one ran around pretending to understand what it meant. There were a ton of consultants and lawyers that basically made up stuff that barely made sense. They grifted money out of startups by taking the most aggressive interpretation and selling policy templates. In the end the regulation was diluted to something that made sense(ish) but that process took about 4 years. It also slowed down all enterprise deals because no one knew if a deal was going to be against GDPR and the lawyers defaulted to “no” in those orgs. Asking regulators to understand and shape market evolution in AI is basically asking them to trade stocks by reading company reports written in mandarin.
- troupo 1y ago
  > In the end the regulation was diluted to something that made sense(ish) but that process took about 4 years. Is the same regulation that was introduced in 2016. The only people who pretend not to understand it are those who think that selling user data to 2000+ "partners" is privacy
- CalRobert 1y ago
  The main thing is the EU basically didn’t enforce it. I was really excited for data portability but it hasn’t really come to pass
verisimi 1y ago
Exactly. No anonymity, no thought crime, lots of filters to screen out bad misinformation, etc. Regulate it.
troupo 1y ago
> before we have any idea what the market is going to look like in a couple years. Oh, we already know large chunks of it, and the regulations explicitly address that. If the chest-beating crowd would be presented with these regulations piecemeal, without ever mentioning EU, they'd probably be in overwhelming support of each part. But since they don't care to read anything and have an instinctive aversion to all things regulatory and most things EU, we get the boos and the jeers
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

t0mas88 1y ago

Sounds like a reasonable guideline to me. Even for open source models, you can add a license term that requires users of the open source model to take "appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works" This is European law, not US. Reasonable means reasonable and judges here are expected to weigh each side's interests and come to a conclusion. Not just a literal interpretation of the law.

deanc 1y ago
Except that it’s seemingly impossible to prevent against prompt injection. The cat is out the bag. Much like a lot of other legislation (eg cookie law, being responsible for user generated content when you have millions of it posted per day) it’s entirely impractical albeit well-meaning.
- lcnielsen 1y ago
  I don't think the cookie law is that impractical? It's easy to comply with by just not storing non-essential user information. It would have been completely nondisruptive if platforms agreed to respect users' defaults via browser settings, and then converged on a common config interface. It was made impractical by ad platforms and others who decided to use dark patterns, FUD and malicious compliance to deceive users into agreeing to be tracked.
  - deanc 1y ago
    It is impractical for me as a user. I have to click on a notice on every website on the internet before interacting with it - often which are very obtuse and don’t have a “reject all” button but a “manage my choices” button which takes to an even more convoluted menu. Instead of exactly as you say: a global browser option. As someone who has had to implement this crap repeatedly - I can’t even begin to imagine the amount of global time that has been wasted implementing this by everyone, fixing mistakes related to it and more importantly by users having to interact with it.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

zizee 1y ago

It doesn't seem unreasonable. If you train a model that can reliably reproduce thousands/millions of copyrighted works, you shouldn't be distributibg it. If it were just regular software that had that capability, would it be allowed? Just because it's a fancy Ai model it is ok?

CamperBob2 1y ago
I have a Xerox machine that can reliably reproduce copyrighted works. Is that a problem, too? Blaming tools for the actions of their users is stupid.
- threetonesun 1y ago
  If the Xerox machine had all of the copyrighted works in it and you just had to ask it nicely to print them I think you'd say the tool is in the wrong there, not the user.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    You'd think wrong.
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    LLMs do not have all copyrighted works in them. In some cases they can be prompted to guess a number of tokens that follow an excerpt from another work. They do not contain all copyrighted works, though. That’s an incorrect understanding.
  - monetus 1y ago
    Are there any LLMs available with a, "give me copyrighted material" button? I don't think that is how they work. Commercial use of someone's image also already has laws concerning that as far as I know, don't they?
  - zettabomb 1y ago
    Xerox already went through that lawsuit and won, which is why photocopiers still exist. The tool isn't in the wrong for being told to print out the copyrighted works. The user still had to make the conscious decision to copy that particular work. Hence, still the user's fault.

m3sta 1y ago

The quoted text makes sense when you understand that the EU provides a carveout for training on copyright protected works without a license. It's quite an elegant balance they've suggested despite the challenges it fails to avoid.

Oras 1y ago
Is that true? How can they decide to wipe out the intellectual property for an individual or entity? It’s not theirs to give it away.
- elsjaako 1y ago
  Copyright is not a god given right. It's an economic incentive created by government to make desired behavior (writing an publishing books) profitable.
  - kriops 1y ago
    Yes it is. In every sense of the phrase, except the literal.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - Zafira 1y ago
      A lot of cultures have not historically considered artists’ rights to be a thing and have had it essentially imposed on them as a requirement to participate in global trade.
      - kolinko 1y ago
        Even in Europe copyright was protected only for the last 250 years, and over the last 100 years it’s been constantly updated to take into consideration new technologies.

badsectoracula 1y ago

> One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way AFAICT the actual text of the act[0] does not mention anything like that. The closest to what you describe is part of the chapter on copyright of the Code of Practice[1], however the code does not add any new requirements to the act (it is not even part of the act itself). What it does is to present a way (which does not mean it is the only one) to comply with the act's requirements (as a relevant example, the act requires to respect machine-readable opt-out mechanisms when training but doesn't specify which ones, but the code of practice explicitly mentions respecting robots.txt during web scraping). The part about copyright outputs in the code is actually (measure 1.4): > (1) In order to mitigate the risk that a downstream AI system, into which a general-purpose AI model is integrated, generates output that may infringe rights in works or other subject matter protected by Union law on copyright or related rights, Signatories commit: > a) to implement appropriate and proportionate technical safeguards to prevent their models from generating outputs that reproduce training content protected by Union law on copyright and related rights in an infringing manner, and > b) to prohibit copyright-infringing uses of a model in their acceptable use policy, terms and conditions, or other equivalent documents, or in case of general-purpose AI models released under free and open source licenses to alert users to the prohibition of copyright infringing uses of the model in the documentation accompanying the model without prejudice to the free and open source nature of the license. > (2) This Measure applies irrespective of whether a Signatory vertically integrates the model into its own AI system(s) or whether the model is provided to another entity based on contractual relations. Keep in mind that "Signatories" here is whoever signed the Code of Practice: obviously if i make my own AI model and do not sign that code of practice myself (but i still follow the act requirements), someone picking up my AI model and signing the Code of Practice themselves doesn't obligate me to follow it too. That'd be like someone releasing a plugin for Photoshop under the GPL and then demanding Adobe release Photoshop's source code. As for open source models, the "(1b)" above is quite clear (for open source models that want to use this code of practice - which they do not have to!) that all they have to do is to mention in their documentation that their users should not generate copyright infringing content with them. In fact the act has a lot of exceptions for open-source models. AFAIK Meta's beef with the act is that the EU AI office (or whatever it is called, i do not remember) does not recognize Meta's AI as open source, so they do not get to benefit from those exceptions, though i'm not sure about the details here. [0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401689 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:... [1] https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/118115 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/11811...

welloktheb 1y ago

[dead]

greatgib 1y ago

It's a trojan horse, they try to do the same thing that is happening in the banking sector. By this they want AI model provider to have a strong grip on their users, so controling their usage to not risk issues with the regulator. Then, the European technocrats will be able control the whole field by being able to control the top providers, that then will overreach by controlling their users.