[criley2]

I think it's unrealistic to expect that open source models that do not self-censor will be legal, especially in the EU. Considering that the current state of self-regulation by OpenAI is seen as wholly inadequate by regulators in most countries, you trying to sell open source as "OpenAI but without all the controls" is going to be a nonstarter once governments catch up.

[xg15]

There still seems to be ongoing discussion how meaningful regulation should even look though. At least in the EU, regulators seem to be quite scared of blocking off promising paths of innovation and ending up far behind the US and China in AI development.

AI enhanced games is a field that I imagine the EU would very likely encourage (as long as the characters don't suddenly engage in sex RP with underage players, lure the player into doing something harmful, start giving weird political opinions, etc)

I haven't seen any attempts at regulating the content of LLMs at all so far, actually. Most of the political discussion so far seems to center around training data (as both a privacy and copyright issue), the effects on employment, problems with cheating in school and plagiarism in academia and the risks of naively using LLM output as some sort of authoritative source.

[raincole]

From what I've seen (probably not the most up-to-date info), the community shares open source model in the form of XOR result of a "parent" model (like LLaMA). It's like people sold "high-suger grape juice" when alcohol was illegel.

It's mostly because LLaMA itself isn't open-source, but I think this method to spread uncensored models will remain legal for a very long time.

The problem is whether this additional friction prevents open source models from getting enough traction.