The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
1–10 of 100 posts
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#2Tl;dr when you got your people in power out of self-interest but now they outlived their usefulness
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#3Wide ranging restrictions such as these are being tactically applied throughout the world. Germany and France enacted similar policies last year. As Ian Hogarth sketched out last year, we're entering an era in which AI becomes part and parcel of a country's geopolitics, an era of AI Nationalism so to speak.
Hogarth expressed the opinion that Google's purchase of DeepMind(A UK based company initially) is going to be seen increasingly in the future as an amazing coup, a unit with some of the world's greatest minds on Deep learning allowed to be sold to a foreign conglomerate. I have to say as time goes by and governments realize how strategic their AI community is, I agree.
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#4This will work about as well as suing Napster did to prevent the spread of music sharing.
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#5I'm curious how export restrictions would affect open source projects like Tensorflow and PyTorch. Would they be forced to become closed source? Could the license just include a disclaimer: "You're not allowed to use this if you're in one of the following countries: ..."? Would sites like Gitlab and Github be forced to implement per-repo geoblocking? Could they somehow be moved to ownership by a non-American entity that wasn't subject to such code? Does a US citizen contributing to a non-US open source ML project constitute a breach of export controls?
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#6"I know, we'll ban math!" - brilliant politicians
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#7What a bunch of maroons.
This stupid approach was such a disaster in the days of crypto controls. Lifting them protected Americans and unleashed a huge number of new capabilities.
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#8I'm curious how export restrictions would affect open source projects like Tensorflow and PyTorch. Would they be forced to become closed source? Could the license just include a disclaimer: "You're not allowed to use this if you're in one of the following countries: ..."? Would sites like Gitlab and Github be forced to implement per-repo geoblocking? Could they somehow be moved to ownership by a non-American entity t…
In the 90s it meant open source software (we didn’t use this term back then) like Kerberos were considered munitions and it was illegal to provide them to non-us persons without a license.
At Cygnus we generated a version with no cryptography at all and sent it to Switzerland where someone wrote crypto routines (available in the open literature) that interoperated, and the everyone on the planet had access to it (but American folks had a different version). All so that the Swiss stock exchange could use Kerberos for single sign on and end-to-end encryption.
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#9I'm curious how export restrictions would affect open source projects like Tensorflow and PyTorch. Would they be forced to become closed source? Could the license just include a disclaimer: "You're not allowed to use this if you're in one of the following countries: ..."? Would sites like Gitlab and Github be forced to implement per-repo geoblocking? Could they somehow be moved to ownership by a non-American entity t…
[deleted]
Re: The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
#10I'm curious how export restrictions would affect open source projects like Tensorflow and PyTorch. Would they be forced to become closed source? Could the license just include a disclaimer: "You're not allowed to use this if you're in one of the following countries: ..."? Would sites like Gitlab and Github be forced to implement per-repo geoblocking? Could they somehow be moved to ownership by a non-American entity t…
In the 90s it meant open source software (we didn’t use this term back then) like Kerberos were considered munitions and it was illegal to provide them to non-us persons without a license. At Cygnus we generated a version with no cryptography at all and sent it to Switzerland where someone wrote crypto routines (available in the open literature) that interoperated, and the everyone on the planet had access to it (but…
Was publishing cryptography papers in open-access journals also illegal? Without such a ban it seems it would be very hard to stop the export of AI, as it's not particularly difficult to implement an AI algorithm from spec, just tedious; certainly much easier than implementing one's own crypto.
>illegal to provide them to non-us persons without a license
I wonder if in this case Git{hub|lab} would need the license, or the person uploading the code?