Exactly, it's a failure of Anthropic and others to understand cyber security. Finding security bugs in software is a good thing and not evil. It will lead to more secure software.
Defense and offense in cyber security are two sides of the same coin.
>especially as we won’t work on product marketing for AI stuff, from a moral standpoint, but the vast majority of enquiries have been for exactly that.
I intentionally ignored the biggest invention of the 21st century out of strange personal beliefs and now my business is going bankrupt
He coined the concept 'singularity' in the sense of machines becoming smarter than humans what a time for him to die with all the advancements we're seeing in artificial intelligence. I wonder what he thought about it all.
>The concept and the term "singularity" were popularized by Vernor Vinge first in 1983 in an article that claimed that once humans create intelligences greater than their own, there will be a technological and social transition similar in some sense to "the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole",[8] and later in his 1993 essay The Coming Technological Singularity,[4][7] in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.
Interesting to see how many people were clamouring that deep learning hit a wall and the whole thing was a fad that would end soon right before it exploded.
I am from the EU, not an American. I am not anti regulation in general. An example of where this has happened before was with GMO's:
> In 2006, the World Trade Organization concluded that the EU moratorium, which had been in effect from 1999 to 2004,[12] had violated international trade rules.[13][14]
We had a moratorium for years and even now we have the most stringent GMO regulations in the world. This crippled GMO research in Europe.
ChatGPT and stable diffusion are killing people now? I think incorrect output of regular software is actually killing people but we don't need a license to write code.
If this wouldn't apply to these foundation models then why would they write an article on how they currently comply or not?
> We assess the compliance of 10 foundation model providers—and their flagship foundation models—with 12 of the Act’s requirements for foundation models
The whole point of this article is to see what would apply to theses models!
Seems to EU is determined to cripple their AI industry at all costs, we already have so little technology companies...
Foundation models are labelled as 'high risk'!
In my opinion this is way too premature... this would cripple open source AI as well...
> While the act includes open source exceptions for traditional machine learning models, it expressly forbids safe-harbor provisions for open source generative systems.
>Any model made available in the EU, without first passing extensive, and expensive, licensing, would subject companies to massive fines of the greater of €20,000,000 or 4% of worldwide revenue. Opensource developers, and hosting services such as GitHub – as importers – would be liable for making unlicensed models available.
>Open Source LLMs Not Exempt: Open source foundational models are not exempt from the act. The programmers and distributors of the software have legal liability. For other forms of open source AI software, liability shifts to the group employing the software or bringing it to market. (pg 70).
While i'm usually pro-EU they are really overreacting here and the consequences for our economy of crippling a technology with so much potential will be enormous in the long run.
Now they need to convince the government that they didn't mean anything of the previous things they claimed.