Adobe, Others Join White House's Voluntary Commitments on AI (reuters.com) 13
Adobe, IBM, Nvidia and five other firms have signed President Joe Biden's voluntary commitments governing artificial intelligence, which requires steps such as watermarking AI-generated content, the White House said. From a report: The original commitments, which were announced in July, were aimed at ensuring that AI's considerable power was not used for destructive purposes. Google, OpenAI and OpenAI partner Microsoft signed onto the commitments in July.
Where's the inevitable catch? (Score:3)
"The president has been clear: harness the benefits of AI, manage the risks, and move fast – very fast," White House chief of staff Jeff Zients said in a statement. "And we are doing just that by partnering with the private sector and pulling every lever we have to get this done."
Even better would be for the government to keep its nose out of things that it doesn't understand. These "commitments" were written by Google, OpenAI and Microsoft and four other heavyweights. Where's the catch? I'm sure there is one...
Here is a better document outlining what the commitments actually are [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Even better would be for the government to keep its nose out of things that it doesn't understand.
Even better would be for the government to start hiring the right people to start understanding this. I believe regulation here is important, but bad regulation is potentially worse than no regulation. The watermark concept, for instance, is simply ludicrous in many if not most scenarios. Should a movie de-aging an actor on screen have a watermark on every movie frame where AI was used? If a company uses AI to make their logo does the 160x160 pixel logo need a watermark? I'm all for carefully crafted legisl
Re: (Score:2)
When government stays "keeps its nose out of things" businesses are free to abuse the marketplace and are reluctant to put limits on their actions. The end result are monopolization and various "externalities". Case in point, superfund sites.
Re: Where's the inevitable catch? (Score:1)
Well, obviously only people that participate in these commitments will now get government contracts. This is the reason why these companies are asking for regulation, to keep any potential competitors out of the market, since regulation solely kills off small companies.
Now what will happen is if you work for the government or government contractor and want to use the AI feature in Blender, theyâ(TM)ll say, no, you have to use Adobe for AI, since that is what the White House signed onto.
The commitment i
It's a good start (Score:2)
Large companies have to be regulated more diligently than small players, and "AI" is just a new field that needs attention. Startup and small companies should have more freedom with experimentation.
Unfortunately, this isn't enough. Congress needs to act and international support is lacking
"The step is seen as a stopgap given that Congress has held discussions on potential AI legislation but little has been introduced and nothing significant has become law"
The cycle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regulating stupid is not something the government does well. Understanding the technology is something they get an F- at. In the 1980s, the Secret Service raided a pirate I knew. He undocked his Corvus hard drive as they came in, and they proceeded in jiggling it all around as they packed it in boxes. Needless to say, there was zero evidence left as the drive was completely erased by their bungling. They couldn't even try him because they'd destroyed all the evidence against him (unlike me, he didn't have h
Voluntary corporate commitment? Lol (Score:2)
What a silly concept. Not worth the paper the PR statement was written on.
Who seriously believes the biggest companies on the planet would do anything at all that might limit profits for the good of humanity or something?
This is just a shield to prevent regulation they won't like. "Oh we don't need laws on this stuff! We all signed off on this non binding voluntary commitment that has absolutely no penalties for breaking! You can trust us!"
But there's already a watermark (Score:1)
Re: But there's already a watermark (Score:1)
Hammer as a service (HaaS) (Score:3)
They desperately want to invert the regulatory landscape to favor "cloud" AI over people training, augmenting and or having their own local AIs.
If I sold a hammer as a service where you ask me where you would like nails placed and I went out to that place and started swinging a hammer as instructed then obviously I'm on the hook for more liability than had I just made one time sales of hammers to randos who walked into my hardware shop.
What the corporations are effectively seeking to do is demand hammers be made in a way that prevents them from being used for evil purposes thus effectively preventing people from creating or owning hammers because compliance would be too costly and onerous. Thus the only remaining avenue for those who still want to benefit from hammers is to pay a huge corporation for hammer as a service.
In parallel any liability associated with being instructed to drive a nail into a gas pipeline or attach things to structures the person paying you doesn't own is to be minimized.
Tethics (Score:2)