On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 9:32 AM Phil Bradley-Schmieg <[email protected]> wrote:
> I feel the same way. Also, despite my earlier email, it's still something > to keep an eye on; e.g. MEPs are pondering adding > <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CJ40-PR-731563_EN.html> > - internet security, > - text-generation (generating things "such as news articles, opinion > articles, novels, scripts, and scientific articles"), > - image/video deepfakes, and > - "AI systems intended to be used by children in ways that have a > significant impact on their personal development, including through > personalised education or their cognitive or emotional development." > > as high risk AI. > I’ve also seen several arguments that the same framework should essentially extent to all software, not just AI. And that’s not completely unreasonable—much software is quite opaque/black-box-y (by nature of its extreme complexity) even before layering AI into the mix. eg, Example 1 in this analysis of the directive is about ML in cars, but ‘simple’ braking software in cars already has a blackbox, cost-shifting problem; see this analysis of Toyota’s pre-AI braking software: ai analysis: https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Ada-Lovelace-Institute-Expert-Explainer-AI-liability-in-Europe.pdf toyota: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_slides.pdf and in the Lovelace Institute analysis, p. 16 notes that some of the analysis should extend to all software.
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
