> The regulation, proposed by the Commission in 2021, was designed to ban some AI applications like social scoring, manipulation and some instances of facial recognition. It would also designate some specific uses of AI as “high-risk,” binding developers to stricter requirements of transparency, safety and human oversight. The catch? ChatGPT can serve both the benign and the malignant.
This does not mean that the regulation is broken but that it should have come even sooner. As Uber found out, to run faster than regulations just works for so much time.
> In February the lead lawmakers on the AI Act, Benifei and Tudorache, proposed that AI systems generating complex texts without human oversight should be part of the “high-risk” list — an effort to stop ChatGPT from churning out disinformation at scale.
This seems an actual good goal. Move fast and break things is not a good approach when what you are breaking is the whole society.
> The EU's AI Act should “maintain its focus on high-risk use cases,” said Microsoft’s Chief Responsible AI Officer Natasha Crampton
> A recent investigation by transparency activist group Corporate Europe Observatory also said industry actors, including Microsoft and Google, had doggedly lobbied EU policymakers to exclude general-purpose AI like ChatGPT from the obligations imposed on high-risk AI systems.
Of course Microsoft wants to sell a product even if they do not know the impact that it will have onto the population. EU should balance that desire of profit taking into account the need of its citizens.
> ChatGPT told POLITICO it thinks it might need regulating: “The EU should consider designating generative AI and large language models as ‘high risk’ technologies, given their potential to create harmful and misleading content,” the chatbot responded when questioned on whether it should fall under the AI Act’s scope.
Funny one.