- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Seems reasonable to me. If you’re using AI then you should be required to own up to it. If you’re too embarrassed to own up to it, then maybe you shouldn’t be using it.
What about my if else AI algorithm?
It’s not really an llm
IMO if your “A*” style algorithm is used for chatbot or any kind of user interaction or content generation, it should still be explicitly declared.
That being said, there is some nuance here about A) use of Copyrighted material and B) Non-deterministic behaviour. Neither of which is (usually) a concern in more classical non-DL approaches to AI solutions.
I’m stoked to see the legal definition of “AI”. I’m sure the lawyers and costumed clowns will really clear it all up.
Prosecution: “Your Honor, the definition of artificial is ‘made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,’ and as all human beings are themselves produced by human beings, we are definitionally artificial. Therefore, the actions of an intelligent human are inherently AI.”
Defense: “The defense does not argue this point, as such. However, our client, FOX News, could not be said to be exhibiting ‘intelligence.’ Artificial they may be, but AI they are clearly not. We rest our case.”
Nice.
That’s exactly what an LLM trained on Reddit would say.
I am an LLM
Large
Lazy
Mammal
With Large Luscious Mammaries ?
Are you AI? You have to tell me if you’re AI, it’s the law.
I’m required by law to inform my neighbours that I am AI.
Are you AI?
It would be nice if this extended to all text, images, audio and video on news websites. That’s where the real damage is happening.
Actually seems easier (probably not at the state level) to mandate cameras and such digitally sign any media they create. No signature or verification, no trust.
No signature or verification, no trust
And the people that are going to check for a digital signature in the first place, THEN check that the signature emanates from a trusted key, then, eventually, check who’s deciding the list of trusted keys… those people, where are they?
Because the lack of trust, validation, verification, and more generally the lack of any credibility hasn’t stopped anything from spreading like a dumpster fire in a field full of dumpsters doused in gasoline. Part of my job is providing digital signature tools and creating “trusted” data (I’m not in sales, obviously), and the main issue is that nobody checks anything, even when faced with liability, even when they actually pay for an off the shelve solution to do so. And I’m talking about people that should care, not even the general public.
There are a lot of steps before “digitally signing everything” even get on people’s radar. For now, a green checkmark anywhere is enough to convince anyone, sadly.
-“If you’re an AI Cop, you have to tell me. It’s the law.”
-“I’m not a cop.”Its insane how a predictive chat bot model is called AI
I mean, we call the software that runs computer players in games AI, so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The AI chatbot brainrot is way worse tbh.someone legit said to me why don’t chatgpt cure cancer like wtf
As if taking all of 4-chan, scrambling it around a little, and pouring the contents out would lead to a cure for cancer. lmao
Do we? Aren’t they just bots? Like I’m not looking at an NPC and calling it AI.
Be sure to tell this to “AI”. It would be a shame if this was a technical nonsense law to be.
But Peter Thiel said regulating AI will bring the biblical apocalypse. ƪ(˘⌣˘)ʃ
Is that after or before it has to tell you it may cause cancer?
Hi there, Cancer Robot here! Excellent question iopq! We state that we cause cancer first, as is tradition.
So does the EU AI act
My LinkedIn feed is 80% tech bros complaining about the EU AI Act, not a single one of whom is willing to be drawn on which exact clause it is they don’t like.
Oh, so just like with the GDPR, cool.
Ok, my main complaint about GDPR is that I had to implement that policy on a legacy codebase and Im pretty sure I have trauma from that.
Skill issue.
My point is higher than yours, get on my level
And if it hallucinates?
Devils advocate here. Any human can also hallucinate. Some of them even do it as a recreational activity
Pretty sure that people who hallucinate are kidnapped and thrown in cages.
If you ask ChatGPT, it says it’s guidelines include not giving the impression it’s a human. But if you ask it be less human because it is confusing you, it says that would break the guidelines.
ChatGPT doesn’t know its own guidelines because those aren’t even included in its training corpus. Never trust an LLM about how it works or how it “thinks” because fundamentally these answers are fake.
