5 ms·

> Not possible. To which governments, courts, and populations likely respond "We don't care if you can't go to market. We don't want models that do this. Solve

by ben_w 10mo ago

> Not possible. To which governments, courts, and populations likely respond "We don't care if you can't go to market. We don't want models that do this. Solve it or don't offer your services here." Also… I think they probably could solve this. AI image analysis is a thing. AI that estimate age from an image has been a thing for ages. It's not like the idea of throwing the entire internet worth of images at a training sessions just to make a single "allowed/forbidden" filter is even ridiculous compared to the scale of all the other things going on right now.

ls612 10mo ago
These models generate probably a billion images a day. If getting it wrong for even one of those images is enough to get the entire model banned then it probably isn't possible and this de facto outlaws all image models. That may precisely be the point of this tbh.
- lokar 10mo ago
  If they can't prevent child porn, then it should be banned.
  - ls612 10mo ago
    Should photoshop be outlawed? What about MS Paint? Both of them I’m pretty sure are capable of creating this stuff. Also, lets test your commitment to consistency on this matter. In most jurisdictions possession and creation of CSAM is a strict liability crime, so do you support prosecuting whatever journalist demonstrated this capability to the maximum extent of the law? Or are you only in favor of protecting children when it happens to advance other priorities of yours?
    - lokar 10mo ago
      Photoshop is fine, running a business where you produce CSAM for people with photoshop is not. And this has been very clear for a while now. I did not see the details of what happened, but if someone did in fact take a photo of a real child they had no connection to and caused the images to be created, then yes, they should be investigated, and if the prosecutor thinks they can get a conviction they should be charged. That is just what the law says today (AIUI), and is consistent with how it has been applied.
      - ls612 10mo ago
        Somehow I doubt the prosecutor will apply the same standard to the other image generation models, which I bet (obviously without evidence given the nature of this discussion) can be convinced by a motivated adversary to do the same thing at least once. But alas, selective prosecution is the foundation of political power in the west and pointing that out gets you nothing but downvotes. patio11 once put it that pointing out how power is exercised is the first thing that those who wield power prohibit when they gain it.
        lokar 10mo ago
        You often see (appropriately, IMO) a certain amount of discretion wrt prosecution when things are changing quickly. I doubt anyone will go to jail over this. What (I think) should happen is state or federal law enforcement need to make it very clear to Xai (and the others) that this is unacceptable, and that if it keep happening, and you are not showing that you are fixing it (even if that means some degradation in the capability of the system/service), then you will be charged. One of the strengths of the western legal system that I think is under appreciated by people here is that it is subject to interpretation. Law is not Code. This makes it flexible to deal with new situations, and this is (IME) always accompanied by at least a small amount of discretion in enforcement. And in the end, the laws and how they are interpreted and enforced are subject to democratic forces.
        ls612 10mo ago
        When the GP said “not possible” they were referring to the strict letter of the law that I was, not to your lower standard of “make a good effort to fix it”. Law is not code because that gives the lawgivers discretion to exercise power arbitrarily while convincing the citizens that they live under the “rule of law”. At least the Chinese for all their faults don’t bother with the pretense.
        lokar 10mo ago
        If you reject the foundation of liberal western civilization I don’t know what to tell you. Move to china?
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- nl 10mo ago
  Even the OP's quote made it clear this isn't the case. Companies need to show they rigorously tested that the model doesn't do this. It's like cyber insurance requirements - for better or worse, you need to show that you have been audited, not prove you are actually safe.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  > These models generate probably a billion images a day. Collectively, probably more. Grok? Not unless you count each frame of a video, I think. > If getting it wrong for even one of those images is enough to get the entire model banned then it probably isn't possible and this de facto outlaws all image models. If the threshold is one in a billion… well, the risk is for adversarial outcomes, so you can't just toss a billion attempts at it and see what pops out, but a billion images, if it's anything like Stable Diffusion you can stop early, and my experiments with SD suggested the energy cost even for a full generation is only $0.0001/image*, so a billion is merely $100k. Given the current limits of GenAI tools, simply not including unclothed or scantily clad people in the training set would prevent this. I mean, I guess you could leave topless bodybuilders in there, then all these pics would look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, almost everyone would laugh and not care. > That may precisely be the point of this tbh. Perhaps. But I don't think we need that excuse if this was the goal, and I am not convinced this is the goal in the EU for other reasons besides. * https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2022/10/09-19.33.04.html https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2022/10/09-19.33.04.html
krapp 10mo ago
>To which governments, courts, and populations likely respond "We don't care if you can't go to market. We don't want models that do this. Solve it or don't offer your services here." No, they likely won't. AI has become far too big to fail at this point. So much money has been invested in it that speculation on AI alone is holding back a global economic collapse. Governments and companies have invested in AI so deeply that all failure modes have become existential. If models can't be contained, controlled or properly regulated then they simply won't be contained, controlled or properly regulated. We'll attempt it, of course, but the limits of what the law deems acceptable will be entirely defined by what is necessary for AI to succeed, because at this point it must. There's no turning back.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  > No, they likely won't. AI has become far too big to fail at this point. So much money has been invested in it that speculation on AI alone is holding back a global economic collapse. Governments and companies have invested in AI so deeply that all failure modes have become existential. Not in Europe it hasn't, and definitely not for specifically image generation, where it seems to be filling the same role as clipart, stock photos, and style transfer that can be done in other ways. Image editing is the latest hotness in GenAI image models, but knowledge of this doesn't seem to have percolated very far around the economy, only with weird toys like this one currently causing drama. > If models can't be contained, controlled or properly regulated then they simply won't be contained, controlled or properly regulated. I wish I could've shown this kind of message to people 3.5 years ago, or even 2 years ago, saying that AI will never take over because we can always just switch it off. Mind you, for 2 years ago I did, and they still didn't like it.
  - pureagave 10mo ago
    I'm sorry to tell you this, but the EU has already been lost.
    - wolvoleo 10mo ago
      Because we're not on the forefront of AI development? It also means we have less to lose when the bubble blows. I'm quite happy with the policies here. And we will become more independent from US tech. It'll just take time.

by ben_w 10mo ago

ls612 10mo ago

These models generate probably a billion images a day. If getting it wrong for even one of those images is enough to get the entire model banned then it probably isn't possible and this de facto outlaws all image models. That may precisely be the point of this tbh.

lokar 10mo ago
If they can't prevent child porn, then it should be banned.
- ls612 10mo ago
  Should photoshop be outlawed? What about MS Paint? Both of them I’m pretty sure are capable of creating this stuff. Also, lets test your commitment to consistency on this matter. In most jurisdictions possession and creation of CSAM is a strict liability crime, so do you support prosecuting whatever journalist demonstrated this capability to the maximum extent of the law? Or are you only in favor of protecting children when it happens to advance other priorities of yours?
  - lokar 10mo ago
    Photoshop is fine, running a business where you produce CSAM for people with photoshop is not. And this has been very clear for a while now. I did not see the details of what happened, but if someone did in fact take a photo of a real child they had no connection to and caused the images to be created, then yes, they should be investigated, and if the prosecutor thinks they can get a conviction they should be charged. That is just what the law says today (AIUI), and is consistent with how it has been applied.
    - ls612 10mo ago
      Somehow I doubt the prosecutor will apply the same standard to the other image generation models, which I bet (obviously without evidence given the nature of this discussion) can be convinced by a motivated adversary to do the same thing at least once. But alas, selective prosecution is the foundation of political power in the west and pointing that out gets you nothing but downvotes. patio11 once put it that pointing out how power is exercised is the first thing that those who wield power prohibit when they gain it.
      - lokar 10mo ago
        You often see (appropriately, IMO) a certain amount of discretion wrt prosecution when things are changing quickly. I doubt anyone will go to jail over this. What (I think) should happen is state or federal law enforcement need to make it very clear to Xai (and the others) that this is unacceptable, and that if it keep happening, and you are not showing that you are fixing it (even if that means some degradation in the capability of the system/service), then you will be charged. One of the strengths of the western legal system that I think is under appreciated by people here is that it is subject to interpretation. Law is not Code. This makes it flexible to deal with new situations, and this is (IME) always accompanied by at least a small amount of discretion in enforcement. And in the end, the laws and how they are interpreted and enforced are subject to democratic forces.
        ls612 10mo ago
        When the GP said “not possible” they were referring to the strict letter of the law that I was, not to your lower standard of “make a good effort to fix it”. Law is not code because that gives the lawgivers discretion to exercise power arbitrarily while convincing the citizens that they live under the “rule of law”. At least the Chinese for all their faults don’t bother with the pretense.
        lokar 10mo ago
        If you reject the foundation of liberal western civilization I don’t know what to tell you. Move to china?
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
nl 10mo ago
Even the OP's quote made it clear this isn't the case. Companies need to show they rigorously tested that the model doesn't do this. It's like cyber insurance requirements - for better or worse, you need to show that you have been audited, not prove you are actually safe.
ben_w 10mo ago
> These models generate probably a billion images a day. Collectively, probably more. Grok? Not unless you count each frame of a video, I think. > If getting it wrong for even one of those images is enough to get the entire model banned then it probably isn't possible and this de facto outlaws all image models. If the threshold is one in a billion… well, the risk is for adversarial outcomes, so you can't just toss a billion attempts at it and see what pops out, but a billion images, if it's anything like Stable Diffusion you can stop early, and my experiments with SD suggested the energy cost even for a full generation is only $0.0001/image*, so a billion is merely $100k. Given the current limits of GenAI tools, simply not including unclothed or scantily clad people in the training set would prevent this. I mean, I guess you could leave topless bodybuilders in there, then all these pics would look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, almost everyone would laugh and not care. > That may precisely be the point of this tbh. Perhaps. But I don't think we need that excuse if this was the goal, and I am not convinced this is the goal in the EU for other reasons besides. * https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2022/10/09-19.33.04.html https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2022/10/09-19.33.04.html

krapp 10mo ago

>To which governments, courts, and populations likely respond "We don't care if you can't go to market. We don't want models that do this. Solve it or don't offer your services here." No, they likely won't. AI has become far too big to fail at this point. So much money has been invested in it that speculation on AI alone is holding back a global economic collapse. Governments and companies have invested in AI so deeply that all failure modes have become existential. If models can't be contained, controlled or properly regulated then they simply won't be contained, controlled or properly regulated. We'll attempt it, of course, but the limits of what the law deems acceptable will be entirely defined by what is necessary for AI to succeed, because at this point it must. There's no turning back.

ben_w 10mo ago
> No, they likely won't. AI has become far too big to fail at this point. So much money has been invested in it that speculation on AI alone is holding back a global economic collapse. Governments and companies have invested in AI so deeply that all failure modes have become existential. Not in Europe it hasn't, and definitely not for specifically image generation, where it seems to be filling the same role as clipart, stock photos, and style transfer that can be done in other ways. Image editing is the latest hotness in GenAI image models, but knowledge of this doesn't seem to have percolated very far around the economy, only with weird toys like this one currently causing drama. > If models can't be contained, controlled or properly regulated then they simply won't be contained, controlled or properly regulated. I wish I could've shown this kind of message to people 3.5 years ago, or even 2 years ago, saying that AI will never take over because we can always just switch it off. Mind you, for 2 years ago I did, and they still didn't like it.
- pureagave 10mo ago
  I'm sorry to tell you this, but the EU has already been lost.
  - wolvoleo 10mo ago
    Because we're not on the forefront of AI development? It also means we have less to lose when the bubble blows. I'm quite happy with the policies here. And we will become more independent from US tech. It'll just take time.