[ChainReaktion]

As always, the devil is in the details. They defined an AI system as software that uses any of: (a) Machine learning approaches, including supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a wide variety of methods including deep learning; (b) Logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deductive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems; (c) Statistical approaches, Bayesian estimation, search and optimization methods.

That could very reasonably be interpreted to mean all software. The act is mostly concerned with high risk applications. These are based on intended use, which is obviously tricky in the context of general purpose LLM’s. Most of the covered intended uses make sense, but in combination with their definition above it could mean that, for example, any developer of EdTech software in the EU could be regulated under the act. More broadly, the act was clearly not written with general purpose foundation models in mind. For example, Article 10 requires that all training data be “relevant, representative, free of errors and complete.” That is pretty much impossible to comply with if you’re training on The Pile or similar.

[VWWHFSfQ]

> Article 10 requires that all training data be "relevant, representative, free of errors and complete."

This is especially interesting to me with regard to something like ChatGPT. As we know, ChatGPT occasionally gives factually incorrect information. Does this mean that, in its current form, it would be illegal in EU? We know that Google is currently blocking access to Bard in EU. Will ChatGPT be forced to follow suit?

ChatGPT is great and I love it. It would be a shame if I'm not even allowed to use it _at my own risk_ just because it might be wrong about some things. This seems like a simplification, but it sounds like EU is allowing Perfect to be the enemy of Good.

[snacktaster]

> I'm not even allowed to use it _at my own risk_

Obvious hyperbole, but:

There is no such thing as "at your own risk" in the EU. It's a Nanny State. Brussels knows best what's good for you.

[orra]

> They defined an AI system as software that uses any of

I think you have genuine concerns, but no, you misunderstand.

You're not quoting the definition of an AI system. You're quoting Annex 1 (of the original draft), which defines “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUES AND APPROACHES referred to in Article 3, point 1”. The definition of an AI system in said Article 3 point 1 has additional requirements.

Moreover, the news here is a revised draft has been made. You can see the revised definition in Article 3 on page 137. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COM...

Finally, to allay your fears, the draft legislation is proportionate: it focuses on “significant risk” and “foundation model[s]”, not every use of PyTorch.

[hartator]

That new definition still encompasses all software systems:

‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, generate outputs such as predictions, recommendations, or decisions that influence physical or virtual environments