Hi Alek, I was saying that the new proposed AI *Liability Directive* is intended to apply only to high risk AI. I wasn't saying the AIA (a Regulation, not a Directive) itself - i.e. the focus of the Brookings analysis - has that limitation.
Regards, Phil On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 11:43, Alek Tarkowski <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > (Coming back to this topic after the weekend) > > I am not sure this will apply only to high-risk cases. At least with > regard to the AIA, the Council seems to be proposing to define ‘general > purpose AI’ (GPAI) (basically large models with capacity to do multiple > tasks) and regulate them as such. That’s what’s suggested in this Brooking > Institute analysis: > > https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2022/08/24/the-eus-attempt-to-regulate-open-source-ai-is-counterproductive/ > > The piece argues, by the way, against regulating such GPAIs, if they are > open source. > But while it gives a good argument about the value of such open source > solutions, it does not explain why they should not be regulated, beyond the > general “regulation sniffles innovation” argument. > > I wonder whether anyone here has more opinion about this or know some > analyses? It would be helpful to see an argument that shows which > characteristics of open source development / deployment solve some of the > issues that would be regulated. But it also seems to me that there are > reasons to introduce stronger governance also of open source AI solutions > (though whether to do that through regulation is a different question). > > It would also be good to understand whether in principle a policy ask for > a carveout on this issue would be similar to previous carveouts (for > example for openly licensed content in copyright regulation). I think that > there are differences in the two scenarios. > > Best, > Alek > -- > Director of Strategy, Open Future | openfuture.eu | +48 889 660 444 > At Open Future, we tackle the Paradox of Open: paradox.openfuture.eu/ > > On 30 Sep 2022, at 19:06, Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
