Technology

59589 readers

2891 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

156

The AI bill that has Big Tech panicked (www.vox.com)

submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Sounds like this is will foss models. This is why all the bug tech companies are pushing ai dangerous narrative they gonna legislate away our freedom for moss models to keep hold of a monopoly. This is how liberty dies with thunderous applause.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

legislation in the works that mandates that companies that spend more than $100 million on training a “frontier model” in AI — like the in-progress GPT-5 — do safety testing. Otherwise, they would be liable if their AI system leads to a “mass casualty event” or more than $500 million in damages in a single incident or set of closely linked incidents.

Are those models made by companies that would be affected based on the conditions above?

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

All models are very costly regardless of open source or closed source, but I'm not sure any current model reaches that high. The 100$ million seems to only applies to the cost of computing and not of buying the actual cards.

The legislation is essentially asking that it can't make nukes or do massive hacking attacking and only asking it of people that definitely have the money to make sure.

It's actually very level headed compared to what most are pushing for. I can't even see it affect current gen AI, which are mostly harmless anyways.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

I believe some may reach that and it does set a significant limit on capability of foss.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

Yup, exactly. The only regulation I'd be in favor of for AI is this: if it was trained on data which can be accessed by or was posted by the public, it must be freely available, such that if anything in the training data was posted online in a way anyone can see, then then I have free access to tge AI too.

Basically any other regulation, even if the companies whine publicly, is actually one that benefits them by raising the barrier of entry and making it more expensive for small actors to create AI tools.

[–] Communist@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do foss models really matter? I'm pro foss and think proprietary software should be banned but these weights are essentially a compiled program, we have no idea what they do

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Some are foss in the sence its free. But u do have a point.