Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

wdtn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

#41

Post by rvnx »

talldayo wrote: post #30
rvnx wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mainly offer open tooling to help you adopt their closed-source tech (e.g. RAG frameworks) but you don't get the freedom to do what you want with the model (which is the core). At some point, these big companies may even want to put more regulation or restrictions on their open-weights / open-source competitors. "Hey this is not validated for safety, you can use only Gemini"

They don't? Microsoft and Google both promote Open Source inferencing frameworks, and while both also have proprietary products I think it's completely dishonest to say they "mainly" support them. ONNX and Tensorflow have been supported longer and more productively than any of the closed-source AI frameworks Google or Microsoft offer.

Let’s see what the future holds.

I’m feeling that the next step will be for regulators to start restricting more and more open-source/open-weight LLMs (and their equivalent Diffusion models), in the name of safety.

Perhaps requiring certifications in professional use for example.

I see it as a happy coincidence for these large players if this is the case, because only folks with large pockets and the right thoughts will be able to get certified.

Re: White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

#42

Post by talldayo »

rvnx wrote: post #41
talldayo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't? Microsoft and Google both promote Open Source inferencing frameworks, and while both also have proprietary products I think it's completely dishonest to say they "mainly" support them. ONNX and Tensorflow have been supported longer and more productively than any of the closed-source AI frameworks Google or Microsoft offer.

Let’s see what the future holds. I’m feeling that the next step will be for regulators to start restricting more and more open-source/open-weight LLMs (and their equivalent Diffusion models), in the name of safety. Perhaps requiring certifications in professional use for example. I see it as a happy coincidence for these large players if this is the case, because only folks with large pockets and the right thoughts w…

You are currently posting in a thread where the root article is a press release detailing why open weight LLMs aren't going to get restricted by the incumbents. I also have seen no indication that any president-hopefuls intend to regulate the tech either. There are no demonstrated dangers yet, the value of exporting this digital snake-oil far outweighs the cost of other people asking ChatGPT how to make a fertilizer bomb.

Re: White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

#43

Post by rvnx »

talldayo wrote: post #42
rvnx wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s see what the future holds. I’m feeling that the next step will be for regulators to start restricting more and more open-source/open-weight LLMs (and their equivalent Diffusion models), in the name of safety. Perhaps requiring certifications in professional use for example. I see it as a happy coincidence for these large players if this is the case, because only folks with large pockets and the right thoughts w…

You are currently posting in a thread where the root article is a press release detailing why open weight LLMs aren't going to get restricted by the incumbents. I also have seen no indication that any president-hopefuls intend to regulate the tech either. There are no demonstrated dangers yet, the value of exporting this digital snake-oil far outweighs the cost of other people asking ChatGPT how to make a fertilizer…

Yes exactly, I’m saying: good it is like that, because in the future it may change because of lobbyists (see above why)

Re: White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

#45

Post by Legend2440 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #21

Better question: Is it possible to restrict open source AI? If it is open then everyone has access. Any restrictions would be akin to demanding that linux not use strong encryption or firefox implement content censorship.

Until 1996 they did put restrictions on strong encryption, and everyone had to implement weak 40-bit encryption.

Re: White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

#46

Post by michaelt »

sandworm101 wrote: post #21

Better question: Is it possible to restrict open source AI? If it is open then everyone has access. Any restrictions would be akin to demanding that linux not use strong encryption or firefox implement content censorship.

It hasn't proven possible yet but who knows what will be developed the future?

A lot of open source efforts depend on big companies training million-dollar models and giving them away. These companies will often apply some censoring adjustment to the weights, which the open source community then undoes through fine tuning.

But perhaps in the future new methods of censorship will be developed, which are radically harder to undo?

And of course, there's always heavy-handed options available - if we can require hairdressers to hold professional licenses, we could require the same of anyone who wants to upload to huggingface or civitai.

Re: White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

#47

Post by bananapub »

fascinating how successful the bullshit rebranding of "sometimes we upload a TB file of weights" as "open source" has gone for them politically. I can't really imagine they thought it would go this well. will be interesting to see how this unexpected boon of a loophole will change their strategy, particularly """OpenAI""", who didn't think to do give themselves enough cover.

Re: White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

#48

Post by popalchemist »

jahewson wrote: post #16
burkaman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds sarcastic, but as is often the case the White House has quite competent people working on this who have put a lot of thought into it already: https://www.ntia.gov/federal-register-notice/2024/dual-use-f... Unfortunately it's past the deadline for you to add your own comments on this, but I'm sure there will be future RFCs if you have thoughts.

In the spirit of this pedantry I’d like to point out that the NTIA is not the White House.

Summary:

On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,” which directed the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, and in consultation with the Secretary of State, to conduct a public consultation process and issue a report on the potential risks, benefits, other implications, and appropriate policy and regulatory approaches to dual-use foundation models for which the model weights are widely available. Pursuant to that Executive Order, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) hereby issues this Request for Comment on these issues. Responses received will be used to submit a report to the President on the potential benefits, risks, and implications of dual-use foundation models for which the model weights are widely available, as well as policy and regulatory recommendations pertaining to those models.

Re: White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

#49

Post by perihelions »

Legend2440 wrote: post #45
sandworm101 wrote: post #21

Better question: Is it possible to restrict open source AI? If it is open then everyone has access. Any restrictions would be akin to demanding that linux not use strong encryption or firefox implement content censorship.

Until 1996 they did put restrictions on strong encryption, and everyone had to implement weak 40-bit encryption.

Those restrictions were unconstitutional for the entire duration they were in effect.

Re: White House says no need to restrict 'open-source' AI at least for now

#50

Post by grumpyinfosec »

sandworm101 wrote: post #21

Better question: Is it possible to restrict open source AI? If it is open then everyone has access. Any restrictions would be akin to demanding that linux not use strong encryption or firefox implement content censorship.

Its possible to restrict DIY building of pretty much anything if your end goal was to stop people from doing something outside of their basement with it. I can't build my own open source coal fired power plant and except to sell power without the EPA coming to kill me. Same would be if i used a open source AI that violated some new consumer protection / anti fraud law if i choose to use it over the public internet / build it into a product. Hell you could probably go after the devs for being accessory if you really wanted to.

The license really does nothing to protect your project from regulation its just that the government doesn't care about open source yet.

Post reply on HN