AI companies will need to report their safety tests to the US government
apnews.com
apnews.com
I fully expect us to do this in Europe. Then complain in 10 years when all the big AI tech comes from abroad.
Europe is copying ChatGPT, and all we got is a louzy LLaMA-fork.
With this kind of regulatory regime I wonder how much of the next wave of AI companies are going to be started abroad... I sort of doubt Mistral is the last one, even though the U.S. has such high talent density.
I'm sure they are going to improve, but compared to what you have shown it's still more of a garage-shop.
(Is Mistral worth 2B+ EUR ? That's another question).
In one way or another, such regulation already implicitly exist in all the countries where there is no First Amendment equivalent.
Perhaps a workaround would be to claim that this is free speech protected by the Fist Amendment and shouldn't be controlled.
(Back to Mistral and regulations), in France, for example, there are certain words or things you cannot write or say without risking to go to jail (in theory, but in practice it's mostly fines), or if you spread certain historical "fake news".
..Chatbot Arena is an incredibly flawed metric. Incredibly biased towards English, and towards certain kinds of tasks people are more likely to test on Chatbot Arena.
If you use a broad range of tasks, let alone in a diverse range of languages, unfortunately GPT-4 is still miles ahead of Mistral. I wish it wasn't the case, hope Mistral catches up as soon as possible.
Are any of the open models in danger of disappearing soon? Should I be downloading local copies before it is to late?
I agree with both and really don't have a clue what's the wise thing to do. I think it's probably the oversight thing, but since other countries will definitely compete without this oversight, someone will eventually release SkyNet. But do we want to be the first?
I don't know...
Seems like an easy choice. We'd never have left the caves if we allowed the precautionary principle to dictate our lives.
What is being a few years behind on China going to do to the western economy to make it not worth slowing down and considering the ethical quandaries? We know from last decade how hard it can be to regulate back issues once companies overreach.
Look at the people who will be doing the regulating. They'll get right on it after they decide which flavor of genocide to support, what books your local library gets to purchase, and who gets to use what restroom.
Basically there is almost zero upside to early government intervention, but the potential downside to regulation is unbounded. That makes it a very easy call, to my way of thinking.
I hate to do the "I asked ai and pasted it here" style of comment, but I really wanted to understand the validity of the claim it surpasses gpt4 in all those benchmarks. I asked gpt4 and qwen-vl-max this prompt to try to get a sense of their capabilities. Nothing even close imo.
"tell me a story about relations between people living on one side of a penny floating through space and the other. Use the format of the hero's journey, including rejecting the call, focus on worldbuilding by hinting at further complexity, and do it in a kafkaesque style"
quen's story starts with: Once upon a time, there was a penny floating through space.
gpt 4: Through the vast emptiness of space drifted an ancient penny, a relic from a long-forgotten Earth.
The difference is night and day atm. Ask yourself: would Kafka have started a story with "once upon a time"
Qwen's is pretty unremarkable, just very direct, but I don't see that one is actually following directions better. Maybe further along the difference gets more stark. Also, isn't Qwen a Chinese-first model? How much of the fine tuning was in English?
Neither example gets too actual utility, though it could highlight the sort of demo that chatgpt is trained for.
I felt the overall writing & characterization of gpt4 was far better, including themes of bureaucracy and psychosis whereas quen sounds like a cliched 6 year old writing an aimless story.
I'm not saying either of these are amazing stories, but I think any english teacher/creative writing teacher would rate one over the other as things stand right now. Things like the comparing the rows of wheat embossed on the penny to the regimented way of life its people lead are actually half decent.
https://anonpaste.pw/v/ccbfb3e8-746f-4311-9db4-cedbf6c3a440#...
> “If you’re going to be leading a commission that is steering the direction of government AI and making recommendations for how we should promote this sector and scientific exploration in this area, you really shouldn’t also be dipping your hand in the pot and helping yourself to AI investments,” said Shaub of the Project on Government Oversight.
While I'm unconvinced this is the best way to tackle the issue, and there's always the possibility for overreach, the story as presented, namely that AI companies are about to become burdened with a vast and nebulous regulatory infrastructure prompted by vague and poorly informed fears about AI, is bunk.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
Executive orders are also useful as temporary legal framework while Congress works on broader laws. As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Even if they don't carry the force of law to any relevant quasi-legislative officers, they give businesses a framework to work within while Congress works.
*Of course, you have to make sure no internet traverses state lines. Better to keep it off the web to be safe.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
The explanation is: "Congress may use its Commerce Power to regulate or prohibit activities provided the economic effects of such activities are substantial."
Note that "substantial" is not wrt what an individual does but "what if everyone did that?"
Honestly, Filburn v. Whitaker was my biggest wake up call that the US is a complete farce with absolutely corrupt checks and balances.
Couple that with other outcomes like Hylton v. United States, where the SC argued that a clear direct tax was actually a usage tax and not subject to apportionment. Plenty of examples of SCOTUS relabeling an activity to say it's fine when it's in clear violation of the Constitution.
It would be similarly a violation if, say, the sale of newspapers was regulated. I suspect you know this but you want to make a glib Twitter style comment rather than have a real discussion.
Your right to free speech is not magically absolute. It does not supercede the rights to life, security, and safety. You can't sell snake oil. You can't claim your product does something it doesn't, or that your service does something it doesn't.
Nobody wants to an AI doctor that gets the diagnosis wrong half of the time, or an AI pharmacist that forgets to account for drug contraindications sometimes to be available for sale on the market. Nobody wants an AI self-driving car that rams into a pedestrian without even slowing down. Nobody wants AI load-testing software to forget that steel bolts aren't infinitely ductile.
If you want to bring a product to market, you don't get to just slap a "NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED" on it because it's software. That never actually worked.
Otoh if you take the view that the sum of LLM predictions is a kind of speech at the instigation of the operator, maybe...
A lot of this should be moot. Whatever Llama or whatever predicts or says, it isn't dangerous. Regulating what an LLM can generate is like banning books. Regulating specific outcomes is a different story. If I make a chatbot that gives bad medical advice, I don't see any legal difference vs giving bad medic advice without the chatbot and that can be regulated and litigated accordingly. The "AI" angle is mostly just a trojan horse to try and exert more control in the name of defeating some boogeyman.
An llm as is is simply a tree. It cannot produce speech by itself, and even if it did modern robotics are not considered citizens (we can deal with that when it comes).
It seems that, as AI becomes the prevalent model for human-computer interaction, requirements like this are not merely stifling to AI (and to the speech, press, and even religious protections that may arise from such interactions), but stifling to general-purpose computing.
Along with increasing "protect the children" sockpuppetry like we have in the bill in the Florida house yesterday - which seem to seek a future in which internet access requires the furnishing of a state ID - actions like this (which you will note did not even come from an additional act of Congress) appear to be rather vulgar measures to prevent technology from empowering anyone who doesn't already have power.
In my view, stifling this is a benefit, not a drawback.
> stifling this is a benefit
I suppose this depends in part on how much value you place on keeping the world a laborious place for humans.
Reducing the need for labor will almost certainly lead to more beauty in the world. If we aren't seeking a world where humans are freed from menial labor and so have bandwidth to make art and music, what are we actually seeking?
Perhaps this needs to be defined first by the AI-luddites and then a more reasoned discussion can follow.
EDIT: For what it's worth, no I don't want people to have to do menial labor or whatnot. I just see no reason to expect AGI to make people's lives better if those people have nothing to economically contribute.
How am I supposed to sympathize with technology that is so far aimed at replacing jobs and having the robber barons on top gain even more money? They've long since burned their goodwill so those benefits aren't coming back to the working (or former working) class.
I think art and music is easier to make in the presence of AI.
It's not a future that benefits small entrepreneurs. And I think the last thing Music needs is even more artists putting out more generated much into the store.
What does this even mean? Nobody was prevented from making a game; you are just describing the market dynamics of the previous human configuration, which of course are going to change along with the rest of this evolution.
And in any case, it's a great time to be a gamer! So many awesome indy games every day.
> And I think the last thing Music needs is even more artists putting out more generated much into the store.
I mean... I look forward to other people making generated music, and who knows, maybe I'll give it a shot someday. How does it prevent you and I from making the music that speaks to us?
The same SEO optimized spam that riddles Google search applies to games as well. These asset flips and large studios and mobile games will do all the same tricks, except now they can make 20 games a year or more instead of 5.
In short, it will be harder for an indie to stand out, and you as a gamer to find what you want to play. People already complain about steam being ridden with trash in their recommendations, this will accelerate it. You can call it "market dybanics" but it won't be one that benefits you nor me.
>How does it prevent you and I from making the music that speaks to us?
Put lack of talent, assumedly. Talent said spammers don't care about because they are just flooding the store and seeing what works, but talent what we would care about.
Art is also in general not easy to "make for ourselves". We don't know what kind of art per se that we would or wouldn't appreciate without external exposure. By definition our own art can't really challenge our own beliefs. So we want to share those ideas with others. And that's where the trouble begins.
If you want to overextend that much you better be ready to deal with thr regulations. We don't want another Boeing in our hands.
Sure its a conspiracy theory, but I do think the government is trying to manipulate public opinion around this space and gain control of it.
Presented as a meme, but it really makes ya think :\
The recent Swift incident only seems noteworthy because many people were introduced to a cyber subculture of which they were previously unaware. But this subculture is 20+ years old.
Anecdotally, when I caught wind of the incident on /g/ a few days ago and saw some of the ridiculous muppet-swift images, I got a chuckle and asked my wife if she had heard of the swift news. She's usually "in the know" with pop culture because she listens to JJR.
To my surprise, not only had she not heard of it, but she was appalled and became very upset about the obviously AI generated image I showed her. She couldn't fathom someone generating such content. Even having the idea to generate such a thing seemed to break her world view. For me it was just another rule 34 chuckle.
They probably need to develop an extremely antisocial, psycopathic, malevolent AI to assess other AIs for safety. Its purpose will be to run through thousands of scenarios, using manipulation, threats, and deception to try to extract dangerous information from the other AI. It can then score the responses based on the information it was able to extract. I don't really see any other way to automate this extremely tedious and error prone task. It's interesting though because we will need to concentrate all of the evil in the world into a single AI in order to run these tests.