6 ms·
The No Fakes Act has a “fingerprinting” trap that kills open source?
- _def 9mo ago"Open Source" in this case means "ML models with open weights" (not my interpretation, it's what the post states - personally that is not what I think of when I read "Open Source")
- scotty79 9mo agoFreeware models would be more accurate term, but people went with stronger meme for this one.
- 0928374082 9mo agoML models with open weights? Like, say, Qwen?
- siliconc0w 9mo agoYay another bill modeled after the DMCA, what could go wrong?
- echelon 9mo agoThis is worse than the DMCA because there's no provision for companies that develop or host the tech. Why the hell can't these legislators keep to punishing the law breakers instead of creating unending legal pitfalls for innovation? We have laws against murdering people with kitchen knives. Not laws against dinnerware. Williams Sonoma doesn't have to worry about lawsuits for its Guy Degrenne Beau Manoir 20-Piece Flatware Set.
- Retr0id 9mo ago> Not laws against dinnerware. Don't worry, the UK is on the case https://reason.com/2019/10/07/the-u-k-must-ban-pointy-knives-says-church-of-england/ https://reason.com/2019/10/07/the-u-k-must-ban-pointy-knives...
- p0w3n3d 9mo agolike in this meme: Oi you cheeky ..., is that a knoife I thought this was an exaggeration
- ErroneousBosh 9mo agoYeah, you know that's a right-wing ragebait site, that posts made-up stories to make the "critical thinkers" angry, right?
- Retr0id 9mo agoI wasn't aware of that, it was just the first non-paywalled article about it I found. The primary source: https://www.rochester.anglican.org/communications/news/government-urged-to-restrict-the-sale-of-pointed-knives.php https://www.rochester.anglican.org/communications/news/gover...
- cowboylowrez 9mo agolol says you, its been my experience that reason.com does NOT post made-up stories, they simply have priorities aligned with their political biases which is relatively normal nowadays. AI agrees. google: "Reason.com is a reputable source that adheres to journalistic standards, but its content is filtered through a specific, consistent libertarian lens."
- mdhb 9mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- dleeftink 9mo agoNot saying this would be the right way to go about preventing undesirable uses, but shouldn't building 'risky' technologies signal some risk to the ones developing them? Safe harbor clauses have long allowed the risks to be externalised onto the user, fostering non-responsibility on the developers behalf.
- akersten 9mo agoFoisting the responsibility of the extremely risky transport industry onto the road developers would certainly prevent all undesirable uses of those carriageways. Once they are at last responsible for the risky uses of their technology, like bank robberies and car crashes, the incentive to build these dangerous freeways evaporates.
- idle_zealot 9mo agoI think this is meant to show that moving the responsibility this way would be absurd because we don't do it for cars but... yeah, we probably should've done that for cars? Maybe then we'd have safe roads that don't encourage reckless driving.
- akersten 9mo agoWe wouldn't have roads at all is my point, because no contractor in their right mind would take on unbounded risk for limited gain.
- dleeftink 9mo agoWhich in case of digital replicas that can feign real people, may be worth considering. Not a blanket legislation as proposed here, but something that signals the downstream risks to the developer to prevent undesired uses.
- akersten 9mo agoUnless they released a model named "Tom Cruise-inator 3000," I don't see any way to legislate that intent that would provide any assurances to a developer that their misused model couldn't result in them facing significant legal peril. So anything in this ballpark has a huge chilling effect in my view. I think it's far too early in the AI game to even be putting pen to paper on new laws (the first AI bubble hasn't even popped, after all) but I understand that view is not universal.
- Aachen 9mo agoThis reply sounds like a lot more sensible take: https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1q7qcux/the_no_fakes_act_has_a_fingerprinting_trap_that/nyhtae5/ https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1q7qcux/the_no_... OP replied and there's another in-depth reply to that below it
- nerdponx 9mo agoStill smells like malicious anti-competitive lobbying by the AI industry.
- terminalshort 9mo agoThe industry does not fear open source models. This is just Karens doing what they do best.
- beeflet 9mo agoIf the industry doesn't fear open-weight models, they should. There is no moat
- hhh 9mo agoWhy? Almost all of the open source models end up actually sucking for general purpose use, and require a decent bit of effort to even make remotely usable for specialized use cases.
- realusername 9mo agoThere's two scenarios going forward that I can see. Either there's a massive reduction of inference and training costs due to new discoveries and then those big hardware hoarders have no moat anymore or nothing new is discovered and they won't be able to scale forward. Either way it doesn't sound good for them.
- torginus 9mo ago
- xmprt 9mo agoI think this title is quite misleading given that it's only impacting open source models which is a very narrow interpretation of open source.
- karlgkk 9mo ago> voice-conversion RVC model on HuggingFace, and someone else uses it to fake a celebrity, you (the dev) can be liable for statutory damages ($5k-$25k per violation). There is no Section 230 protection here. This effectively makes hosting open weights for audio models a legal suicide mission unless you are OpenAI or Google. Good.
- kouteiheika 9mo agoSo you'd prefer that only rich megacorporations and criminals have access to this technology, and not normal people and researchers?
- Joel_Mckay 9mo agoThe studios did already rip off Mark Hamill of all people. Arguing regulatory capture versus overt piracy is a ridiculous premise. The "AI" firms have so much liquid capital now... they could pay the fines indefinitely in districts that constrain damages, and already settled with larger copyright holders like it was just another nuisance fee. =3
- renewiltord 9mo agoHow is that surprising? The advent of modern AI tools has resulted in most people being heavily pro-IP. Everyone now talks about who has the copyright to something and so on.
- beeflet 9mo agointellectual property isn't going to save us. it's a flimsy retort, like the water usage complaints
- Joel_Mckay 9mo agoThis covers the data center resource green-washing rhetoric, and most taxpayers will be paying more for energy now regardless of what they think: '"Generative AI" is not what you think it is' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo And this paper proved the absurd outcome of the bubble is hype: 'Researchers Built a Tiny Economy. AIs Broke It Immediately' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUekLTqV1ME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUekLTqV1ME It is true bubbles driven by the irrational can't be stopped, but one may profit from peoples delusions... and likely get discount GPUs when the economic fiction inevitably implodes. Best of luck =3
- logicchains 9mo agoIt should be called the anti-AGI bill, because trying to ban AI with certain capabilities is essentially banning embodied AI capable of learning/updating its weights live. The same logic applied to humans would essentially ban all humans, because any human can learn to draw and paint nudes of someone else.
- geraldog 9mo agoYou know kids, in the 80s, a lot of time before the First Crypto Wars, we had something called the Porn Wars on American Congress. I could leave out many depositions to Congress on Youtube, but I will leave you with some good music. (shill) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMsveLMdds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMsveLMdds Which is of course the European Version, not the evil American Version.
- 71bw 9mo agoIs there some other music artist that has been present in the Congress as prevalently as Zappa...?
- p0w3n3d 9mo agosorry for offtop but I've just discovered Frank Zappa and he looks and sounds like the precursor of Serj Tankian (SOAD) - I mean "sounds" like as in similar crazy all over the place style
- zx8080 9mo ago> I contacted my reps email to flag this as an "innovation killer." Chinese companies will happy to drive innovation further after Google and OpenAI giants goes on with this to kill competition in the US. US capitalism eats itself alive with this.
- scotty79 9mo agoI really love how, thanks to China, people are beginning to see how technologically suppresive American oligarchy is and who's the reason why we can't have nice things.
- SamInTheShell 9mo agoThe actual link from the initial reddit post without the GOOG tracking: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1367 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/136... Edit: Also does this mean OpenAI can bring back the Sky voice?
- josalhor 9mo agoWe do have tech that is "behind doors". Just look at military applications (nuclear, tank and jet design etc). Should "clonable voice and video" be behind close doors? Or should AGI be behind close doors? I think that the approach of the suggested legistation may not the right way to go about; but at a certain level of implementation capability I'm not sure how I would handle this situation. If current tech appeared all of a sudden in 1999; I am sure as a society we would all accept this, but slow boiling frog theory I guess.
- rookderby 9mo agoReddit is one of the domains I block using StepenBlack's hosts list [0]. Here is some background info on the act from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fakes_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fakes_Act. [0] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/blob/master/readme.md https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/blob/master/readme.md
- alphazard 9mo agoLikely unconstitutional as it violates the 1st amendment, which has done a very good job of protecting the right to author and distribute software over the years. Clearly an unintended positive consequence, since no one who worked or voted on the Bill of Rights had a computer. If the courts upheld the part in question, it would create a clear path to go after software authors for any crime committed by a user. Cryptocurrencies would become impossible to develop in the US. Holding authors responsible for the actions of their users basically means everyone has to stop distributing software under their real names. There would be a serious chilling effect, as most open source projects shutdown or went underground.
- Guvante 9mo agoThe law in question was very specific and not as broad as you imply here. In fact more specific than the Redittor implies too since the law doesn't cover audio models in general only those purpose built to replicate a particular individual. As the law is specifically targeting models made to duplicate an individual it isn't hard to provide sufficient evidence to clear the hurdles required of restrictions on free speech as examples of the negative effects are well documented and "speech model for an individual" isn't a broad category. Also I would point out first amendment isn't used by the US to protect software delivery anywhere. Instead it is Congress explicitly encouraging it through the laws it passes.