Automating jobs isn't a risk, it's the main feature. I can't wait for a future in which human will have to do little actual work besides what they feel like doing.
Edit: For the replies, yes, things adjust. It's not, however, instantaneous.
The exception is when the regulatory environment prevents certain jobs from being automated or otherwise competitive, resulting in artificial scarcity of necessities. But then your problem isn't AI, it's market consolidation and regulatory capture.
The problem is not that a plan doesn't exist! It's that powerful don't have the goal of enabling the plan, and they use their power to actively fight against it.
I do not see that changing with the advent of more powerful computer systems.
More recently, computers have already automated a huge number of jobs, yet the unemployment rate remains around 3%, proving that people are doing "something". And that something is definitely not doing data copying, manual additions and computations, etc.
Sounds like the devil is in the details. What if you scrape a large quantity of images and the end result just happens to be able to recognize many faces?
Hosted services like ChatGPT can "solve" this by refusing to identify faces, and if you hack around it with prompt engineering, well, they can tell the EU that they tried.
Open source models that can handle images, though? Hopefully this regulation does not end up forbidding the use of general-purpose open source models.
> Sounds like the devil is in the details. What if you scrape a large quantity of images and the end result just happens to be able to recognize many faces?
I think you can solve this by focusing on the end result. If you create a tool that scrapes images, processes them in some way, and ends up being capable of facial recognition, then it should fall under the purview of this law.
> Hosted services like ChatGPT can "solve" this by refusing to identify faces, and if you hack around it with prompt engineering, well, they can tell the EU that they tried
And then the EU can reply "you didn't try hard enough, now take down the tool and pay these fines".
However, is there any sign that ChatGPT can do general facial recognition?
> Open source models that can handle images, though? Hopefully this regulation does not end up forbidding the use of general-purpose open source models
This a more valid worry, to my mind.
But building a model that can do facial recognition, and scraping a bunch of photos of faces to train that model I think would be fine.
I think the idea is so you cannot find someone from their face. Like if I have your photo, and I could find other photos/footage of say where you were last seen.
For example, I think you could still train face recognition models, and deploy them on Google Photos to find you and your friends amongst your own photos.
If a product's primary purpose is crime, fine, ban it. But AI models should be treated just like other technologies, from email to the web to the computer itself.
https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/18duaoi/elon_musks...
LLMs don't tell the truth, either.
They are models, not actors. Pretending otherwise is one of the most significant (and profitable) lies ever told.
And it is the correct behaviour that they do so, in my opinion.
For example, Media Matters hiding their methodology of following racist accounts and refreshing the page until an incredibly rare event of a major company ad showing up next to the racist content they intentionally sought out — and then pretending this is anything but a rare, manipulated event.
Or your example, of showing a radical GPT response while hiding the prompt.
What is it about Elon Musk that triggers people so badly, they engaged in underhanded or manipulative tactics to “go after” him?
Chemical and biological weapons fit the first category, since they're almost useless in a military context since they're incredibly difficult to control or incubate, and end up being mostly terror weapons. It's why bans of them are far more complete, whereas nuclear disarmament is practically a nonstarter.
AI and especially AI weapons seem like the second category. Where many will call for a ban, but many will ignore it because they provide such an advantage to the workforce or on the battlefield.
Here it is the EU who is limiting itself and it is not comparable to the Geneva convention since other countries will not adhere. While EU limits themselves others will take advantage of the technology.
Returning to the Geneva convention, we don't know if in less than 100 years you could build a weapon of mass destruction at home like you print a 3D model. The problem is technology is also a Pandora Box that at some point you cannot control with laws.
The Geneva convention has less than 100 years, let's see what happen to the humanity in another 100.
So a 7% tax on developing/deploying such systems. Not a bad deal.
>https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231206IP...
Released where? Out of the crazy house?
Like Facebook and TikTok?
https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filter...
That said, as a libertarian I generally oppose such laws that restrict freedom in such a specific way. I think there should be simpler and more general laws centered around harm. If some action results in individual harm and it does not yield a net social benefit (for society as a whole) then the victims should be able to obtain damages from the perpetrator.
