you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 79 points 1 year ago (20 children)

Misleading title. Applies only to AI bought by the Feds.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 117 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Watch all the AI companies scramble to comply in a quest for government contracts. This will affect everyone who uses American LLMs and generative AI.

    It should also open an opportunity for international competition from less censored models.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    But anything the US feds contracted them for, like building data centres, they have to comply or they face penalties and have to pay all the costs back.

    10 days ago, a week before this was announced, they awarded $200M contracts each to Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and xAI

    This doesn’t doom the public versions, but they now have a pretty strong incentive to save money and make them comply with the US governments new definition of truth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Because Executive Orders aren’t laws. They’re just guidelines for the executive branch of the federal government, which the POTUS is in charge of. It can’t affect private entities like AI businesses, because that would require an actual act of congress.

    Notably, this would potentially determine what kinds of contracts the executive branch was able to make. For instance, maybe the government wants to contract out a LLM instead of building their own. This EO could affect which companies are able to bid on that contract, by adding these same restrictions to any LLM that they provide. But on its own, the EO is just that; an order to the executive branch of the federal government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Well, in practice, no.

    Do you think any corporation is going to bother making a separate model for government contracts versus any other use? I mean, why would they. So unless you can pony up enough cash to compete with a lucrative government contract (and the fact none of us can is, on fact, the while point), the end result will involve these requirements being adopted by the overwhelming majority of generative AI available on the market.

    So in reality, no, this absolutely will not be limited to models purchased by the feds. Frankly, I believe choosing to think otherwise to be dangerously naive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Based on the attempts we've seen at censoring AI output so far, there doesn't seem to me to be a way to actually do this without building a new model with pre-censored training data.

    Sure they can tune models, but even "MechaHitler" Grok was still giving some "woke" answers on occasion. I don't see how this doesn't either destroy AI's "usefulness" (not that there's any usefulness there to begin with) or cost so much to implement that investors pull out because none of the AI companies are profitable, and throwing billions more to sift through and filter the training data pushes profitability even further away (if censoring all the training data is even possible at all).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    No. You would use a base model (GPT-4o) to get a reliable language model to which you would add a set of rules that the chat bot follows. Every company has its own rules, it is already widely in use to add data like company-specific manuals and support documents. Not rocketscience at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So many examples of this method failing I don't even know where to start. Most visible, of course, was how that approach failed to stop Grok from "being woke" for like, a year or more.

    Frankly, you sound like you're talking straight out of your ass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sure, it can go wrong, it is not fool-proof. Just like building a new model can cause unwanted surprises.

    BTW. There are many theories about Grok's unethical behavior but this one is new to me. The reasons I was familiar with are: unfiltered training data, no ethical output restrictions, programming errors or incorrect system maintenance, strategic errors (Elon!), publishing before proper testing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)