51–60 of 129 posts
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…
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.
Just as Steve Jobs used to say when the media was constantly stoking fears about the power of personal computers in the 1980s—“you can just throw it out the window.”
Yet, he simultaneously took advantage of that media hysteria when signing off on what is considered the best commercial of all time- “1984 won’t be like 1984 because Apple”
Essentially what OpenAI is doing right now in Washington (ie. stoking the fear and also selling the solution).
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
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
That site has some questionalble views, for example https://technomancers.ai/pardon-elizabeth-holmes/
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 countries like the US don’t pass similar laws). By the time Europe realizes its mistake, it will be too late to catch up.
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…
From I read earlier (I did not waste time on this article again) EU rules in the propisal that is not definite are about critical stuff. I agree that would be idiotic to let some greedy bastards sell some MedicalGPT to us, or PoliceGPT, SurveilenceGPT. Imagine the MedicaGPT will give you different treatment each time you ask since is not deterministic, or if you change the patient name from Bob to John then it gives…
https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/32477/what-is-the-tem...
It's unfortunate that EU regulators seem to be making the same mistakes as you because they have a similar understanding of language models.
Does the EU ever get tired of proposing terrible innovation crushing laws?
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.
Power grab and preservation. This will be quickly approved to preserve existing players and power status quo (lawyers, managers and doctors don't want to be automated away).
Is like trying to regulate cars to save the horse shoe industry.
And if doctors can be automated away so can software developers. I guess in the long term we are all obsolete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've been there with GDPR. It didn't help creating the level playing field they officially wanted to achieve. BigTech has law departments whilst local tech startups have to deal with legal battles initiated by third-class legal firms crawling the web. They just end up making their local tech entrepreneurs flee to US/UK.
I'm sure European startups like Plausible, Matomo, Nextcloud, which exist because of the GDPR or have gotten a huge boost from it agree with you.
Interesting, from the site: “applications, such as a CV-scanning tool that ranks job applicants, are subject to specific legal requirement” This is a continuation of EU logic first seen in GDPR around what that law calls “automated decision making”. All I can say is that GDPR hasn’t had a good effect. Partly because It’s not well written from a technical perspective. GDPR demands explainable and auditable automation.…
Even doing a few dozen audits of the AI run and coming up with better results, how can you assume these results will be consistent across thousands of resumes that will be blindly scanned ?
Usually stats could be applied, except as it's a black box, can we assume that behavior will have cobsistency ? (a dumb example: if the AI is somewhat influenced by dates, decision will drastically change as time goes by)