[ironrabbit]

> the company pushed back against a proposed amendment to the AI Act that would have classified generative AI systems such as ChatGPT and Dall-E as “high risk” if they generated text or imagery that could “falsely appear to a person to be human generated and authentic.” [...] The company argued that it would be sufficient to instead rely on another part of the Act, that mandates AI providers sufficiently label AI-generated content and be clear to users that they are interacting with an AI system.

This sounds pretty reasonable? I don't think it's hypocritical to be talking about the doom of humanity and also arguing that GPT-3, a 3-year old model, should not be classified as "high-risk" in that sense.

Even if you disagree, questioning Altman's leadership and calling him an "empty soul" over this kind of regulatory detail is not adding substance to the discussion imo.

[PedroBatista]

Given his past and present moves ( not what he says publicly ), calling him an "empty soul" are pretty kind words.

Also, the playing dumb card and the "I'm just a tech bro full of innocent dreams" story has already been done to death by the bros from the previous cycle ( think Zuckerberg and his peers ).

It's a scumbag move that most of his peers actually do too and it should at least be publicized and called out.

[TheHumanist]

Could you elaborate on why calling him an empty soul are pretty kind words?

[PedroBatista]

Because an empty soul has no wills, so no malice or greed.

Kind of like the usual "I'm not an asshole, I have Aspergers.."

Sam Altman is none of these things.

[shubb]

When Altman says high risk, he means only Microsoft should be allowed to run an AI in case the plot of Terminator happens.

When the EU say high risk, they mean that an AI pacemaker should be explainable enough that you can guarantee it won't randomly kill people. They also mean that low risk applications such as AI holiday recommendation or fiction writing should be more or less unregulated.

Which one is reasonable?

[hospitalJail]

I think lots of us are feeling the same way about ClosedAI, regulations aside.

Scary to think how much power they have choosing winners and losers. I never got GPT4 API access.

Until the local models get up to speed, we are at the whim of this company deciding who wins and who loses.

[bioemerl]

Not really. If your intent is to truly ensure content is labeled open AI isn't able to ensure that since you can just copy paste their output.

They want the law and they want to promise safety while not being impacted by the overbearing regulation they've invited onto the rest of us.

[andrewstuart]

Edited to remove criticism