> hold companies and individuals responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Are you referring to the model providers or the companies/individuals using the models or both?
Like I totally get it about the one instructing the model that result in some harm (be it the model provider themselves or ones using it). If a person buys a gun and commits a crime, they are held responsible not the gun maker or seller (assuming the seller followed selling regulations too, and it wasn't the gun maker or the gun seller who committed the crime obviously). That's already the case though. For example, Cyber attacks are a crime regardless how you do it. It's not like a company can trade publicly today that's using AI to attack other companies intentionally. I'm sure if huggingface or the government wanted to sue OpenAI for cyber attacks, they could be successful in getting paid for damages or getting a fine imposed. All parties are just choosing not to at the moment, but if a company makes a habit of doing that, they will get sued. If Chase or Amazon tell Meta to stop Muse from using them, Meta will have to abide or they will get sued.
On the other hand, holding model developers and providers responsible for the model's results would be a form of AI regulation, right? Like you can regulate social media websites by holding them responsible for their user's posts too or deregulate them by not doing that, we ended up with the latter. If Section 230 never happened in the 1990s, then the internet would look very very different today.
Furthermore, it seems to me that holding model developers and providers responsible for the results of their models would be that regulatory capture every one is against, no? like how can an opensource model developer exist without getting sued into oblivion. And how can a small model provider survive if there is always a looming disaster they might be responsible for. As a result only the big players would exist and they would heavily control who gets access to these models through a lot of inner deals and contracts on how they can be used.
Are you referring to the model providers or the companies/individuals using the models or both?
Like I totally get it about the one instructing the model that result in some harm (be it the model provider themselves or ones using it). If a person buys a gun and commits a crime, they are held responsible not the gun maker or seller (assuming the seller followed selling regulations too, and it wasn't the gun maker or the gun seller who committed the crime obviously). That's already the case though. For example, Cyber attacks are a crime regardless how you do it. It's not like a company can trade publicly today that's using AI to attack other companies intentionally. I'm sure if huggingface or the government wanted to sue OpenAI for cyber attacks, they could be successful in getting paid for damages or getting a fine imposed. All parties are just choosing not to at the moment, but if a company makes a habit of doing that, they will get sued. If Chase or Amazon tell Meta to stop Muse from using them, Meta will have to abide or they will get sued.
On the other hand, holding model developers and providers responsible for the model's results would be a form of AI regulation, right? Like you can regulate social media websites by holding them responsible for their user's posts too or deregulate them by not doing that, we ended up with the latter. If Section 230 never happened in the 1990s, then the internet would look very very different today.
Furthermore, it seems to me that holding model developers and providers responsible for the results of their models would be that regulatory capture every one is against, no? like how can an opensource model developer exist without getting sued into oblivion. And how can a small model provider survive if there is always a looming disaster they might be responsible for. As a result only the big players would exist and they would heavily control who gets access to these models through a lot of inner deals and contracts on how they can be used.