Hacker News Reader

Comment by troupo | Hacker News Reader

Before the usual rush of "EU is anti-innovation" that is typical on HN, I recommend this article, too: "The truth about the EU AI Act and foundation models, or why you should not rely on ChatGPT summaries for important texts" https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-ac... (though the InfoQ article does give a very short neutral summary, too)

View on HN

Thanks for the link, it just served to reinforce my view that EU is anti-innovation. These points can’t be read any other way. They will put EU at a disadvantage in AI development.

It means that you read neither the original article nor the one I linked.

> Developers (not deployers) of foundation models need to register their models, with documentation, prior to making it available on the market or as a service.

What would "on the market" mean here? Would you need to register a model that you upload on huggingface?

How many of the models on HuggingFace are foundational models trained from scratch?

My question was not rhetorical.

Neither was my reply, I honestly don’t know.

The sibling comment suggests that there are only a few foundational models on HF. They are presumably squarely within the target of this new EU law. HF as the hosting company will be in a similar position as YouTube is with local video licensing and content restrictions.

From the article I linked: "The developers of a foundation model are responsible for compliance, not the deployers."

At worst HuggingFace will be asked to remove those models until they are made compliant.

If anything, if you believe HuggingFace's marketing blurb from the front page, they should be thrilled.

HuggingFace: "The AI community building the future"

EU: foundational models should be documented, data sources should be explained and summarized.

What better way of ensuring community AI can be built and reasoned about?

Only a few, but they are very important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com