61–70 of 129 posts
I wonder if all those calling ChatGPT and the like “AI” when it’s nothing of the sort regret doing so now. AI is a scary word for certain groups, while machine learning (which is what this is) isn’t. Now you have a bunch of Luddites with pitchforks looking for a witch to burn. What this act will do is severely stunt the European economy compared to the rest of the world, which will be racing ahead (as long as countri…
I wonder if all those calling ChatGPT and the like “AI” when it’s nothing of the sort regret doing so now. AI is a scary word for certain groups, while machine learning (which is what this is) isn’t. Now you have a bunch of Luddites with pitchforks looking for a witch to burn. What this act will do is severely stunt the European economy compared to the rest of the world, which will be racing ahead (as long as countri…
Basically, as I understand it, it divides AI systems (in the broadest sense Machine Learning sense) into risk categories: unacceptable risk (prohibited), high risk, medium/other risk, and low risk.
Applications in the high risk category include medical devices, law enforcement, recruiting/employment and others. AI systems in this category will be subject to the requirements mentioned by most people here (oversight, clean and correct training data, etc).
Medium risk applications seem to revolve around the risk of tricking people, for example via chatbots, deepfakes etc. In this case they require to “notify” people that they are interacting with an AI or that the content was generated by AI. How this can be enforced in practice remains to be seen.
And the low risk category is basically everything else, from marketing applications to ChatGPT (as I understand it). Applications in this category would have no mandatory obligations.
If you ask me, that’s a quite sensible approach.
Why is everyone in a hurry to regulate AI? I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM. Besides "AI" is largely a marketing term, most software has "AI" elements and that has been the case for a while now, this thing has "unintended consequences" written all over it.
I wonder if all those calling ChatGPT and the like “AI” when it’s nothing of the sort regret doing so now. AI is a scary word for certain groups, while machine learning (which is what this is) isn’t. Now you have a bunch of Luddites with pitchforks looking for a witch to burn. What this act will do is severely stunt the European economy compared to the rest of the world, which will be racing ahead (as long as countri…
The act is about automated processes, "AI" or not.
Article 10 requires that > all training data be "relevant, representative, free of errors and complete." This is especially interesting to me with regard to something like ChatGPT. As we know, ChatGPT occasionally gives factually incorrect information. Does this mean that, in its current form, it would be illegal in EU? We know that Google is currently blocking access to Bard in EU. Will ChatGPT be forced to follow s…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalik_Buterin
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio...
There was a great article on this recently that cuts through the EU’s dressing: EU AI Act To Target US Open Source Software https://technomancers.ai/eu-ai-act-to-target-us-open-source-... TLDR it imposes ridiculous constraints on github and open source developers
I don't know, my impression is that this is written by someone who doesn't understand how law works and making hyperbolic assumptions through cherrypicking. I recall a similar panic and outrage when GDPR was introduced, claiming that it will bankrupt startups and small projects etc. The EU stuff is usually against large corporations who pose systematic risks. Think about how TikTok makes the US freak out about China…
Your use of “probably” is quite telling. Probably, as in, maybe not, maybe yes, who knows. As the act is phrased today, anyone who publishes a certain type of model, or a derivative of such, is a subject to certain legal obligations. Do you want to risk that Europol or any other task force knocks on your door, or hope every time that you slip under the radar?
Those acts, together with the CRA, are so vague that a lot of people will operate in a grey area. So maybe nobody knocks on your door for a year. Or two. Or five. But when they knock, good luck defending yourself from a legal action based on laws written by people who had so little idea they had to leave so many vague points open to interpretation depending on who doesn’t like you to what extent.
I wonder if all those calling ChatGPT and the like “AI” when it’s nothing of the sort regret doing so now. AI is a scary word for certain groups, while machine learning (which is what this is) isn’t. Now you have a bunch of Luddites with pitchforks looking for a witch to burn. What this act will do is severely stunt the European economy compared to the rest of the world, which will be racing ahead (as long as countri…
So what's AI then?
I wonder if all those calling ChatGPT and the like “AI” when it’s nothing of the sort regret doing so now. AI is a scary word for certain groups, while machine learning (which is what this is) isn’t. Now you have a bunch of Luddites with pitchforks looking for a witch to burn. What this act will do is severely stunt the European economy compared to the rest of the world, which will be racing ahead (as long as countri…
Consider, for example, GDPR. Its implementation in Europe essentially forced compliance worldwide (with some smaller companies choosing to just not support users in the EU). And that's a good thing.
It's a large enough market that it can and should lead the way in sensible protections.
This isn't about luddites looking to burn witches. There are very sensible and immediate risks that we need to get ahead of. As someone in the ML/AI space I'm glad that many of the risks are coming to light. We don't need AGI for there to be serious problems with abuse of language models.