2 ms·
Oh apologies, I had went and gotten a link and must have forgotten to paste, this one from WSJ though I saw others on reddit earlier as well: https://www.msn.c
by ddxv 2mo ago
Oh apologies, I had went and gotten a link and must have forgotten to paste, this one from WSJ though I saw others on reddit earlier as well:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/white-house-s-ai-guidelines-exempt-us-open-models-from-government-review/ar-AA29p6ij https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/white-house-s-ai-gui...
Btw, if you want to 'verify' any of this, seems we can't? The axios article in OPs link says this will not be made public.
- archonis 2mo agoAxios has lost a lot of credibility as of late. Seems like they're quite willing to journalism wash anything the current dministration tells them.
- no-name-here 2mo agoThanks. The language in that article is a bit unclear/contradictory, but my read of it was actually the only the big 3 U.S. labs would be subject to it for now: > only makers of closed, proprietary U.S. models that demonstrate state-of-the-art capabilities in cybersecurity and hacking based on performance benchmarks would have to voluntarily submit those models to the government for testing before they are released (Separate from who is affected, even the language around “having to” “voluntarily” submit seems contradictory - if you “have to” submit then it isn’t ‘voluntary’.)