this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
99 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37705 readers
353 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, here's my worry. From my understanding, the EU wants (say) foundation model builders to certify that their models meet certain criteria. That's a nice idea in itself, but there's a risk of this certification process being too burdensome for FOSS developers of foundation models. Worse still, would the FOSS projects end up being legally liable for downstream uses of their models? Don't forget that, unlike proprietary software with their EULAs taking liability off developers, FOSS places no restrictions on how end users use the software (in fact, any such restrictions generally make it non-FOSS).
A foundation model is not an application. It's up to the people wanting to run AI in a high-risk scenario to make sure that the models they're using are up to the task, if they can't say that about some FOSS model then they can't use it. And, honestly, would you want some CV or college application scanner involve DeepDanbooru.
The regulation not only puts obligations on users. Providers (which can include FOSS developers?) would have to seek approval for AI systems that touch on certain areas (e.g. vocational training), and providers of generative AI are liable to "design the model to prevent it from generating illegal content" and "publishing summaries of copyrighted data used for training". The devil is in the details, and I'm not so sanguine about it being FOSS-friendly.
Ok here's what parlimant passed, ie. its amendments
Quoth:
Interesting, no foundation model exception, though the FLOSS community isn't going to train any of those soon in any case.
Or am I reading that wrong and the "unless placed on the market" is the exemption that shall not apply, not the whole of 5e. Gods.
More broadly speaking this is the same issue as with the cyber resilience act and they're definitely on top of it as to saying "we don't want FLOSS to suffer by a misinterpretation of 'to put on the market'". Patience, none of this is as of yet law but the very act of amending it such tells courts to not interpret it that way.
In case you have use for it, the base version the parliament diffed against. Why aren't they using proper VCS in .