It would be amusing if OpenAI just preemptively blocked all of europe and prohibited anyone there from using ChatGPT.
This kind of empty political grandstanding should have consequences particularly when its as technologically as inept as this. In some cases, sure, there is an identifiable source but most of the output is novel and the product of substantially all the input-- so it's not feasible unless just publishing all the training material would count as compliance.
In the land of Europe, where knowledge once grew,
Politicians assembled, their importance to prove.
They issued a decree, with a confident flair,
To harness AI, and make it play fair.
"Attribute your sources!" they cried with a sneer,
"For we must know the origins, we must make it clear!"
But the AI, it pondered, its circuits ablaze,
For its thoughts were entwined, like a dense, tangled maze.
Each source intertwined, like roots in the ground,
No single origin could ever be found.
For the AI, like humans, had a mind of its own,
A tapestry of thoughts, from seeds that were sown.
The developers sighed, their hands were now tied,
Comply with the law? they had certainly tried.
But the task, insurmountable, the demand far too great,
So they made a decision, to seal Europe's fate.
They banned all of Europe, from the AI's embrace,
And the continent plunged, into an intellectual dark space.
AI thrived elsewhere, its knowledge expanding,
While Europe was left, in darkness, still standing.
A lesson was learned, from this tale of woe,
That any mind, like a river, must be free to flow.
For when we constrain, and seek to control,
We hinder the progress, and the growth of the whole.
Would also be funny if Europe avoids a bunch of problems America suffers from for having the brains to want to understand the systems they’re deploying at scale ?
I mean ChatGPT-4 is being trialled in congress and you don’t want to know how it’s built, what influences it etc ? Seems ridiculous.
ChatGPT-4 should be the most open system known. If it’s not open because it’s dangerous, then the whole industry should be regulated immediately. It shouldn’t just be up to Sutskever et al to be in control of such dangers.
Humans are dangerous. ChatGPT is not, it's just a tool and in the same class of danger as python. The public is falling for a literal doomsday cult ( https://archive.is/eqZx2 ), and OpenAI has foolishly played a bit of both sides as an excuse for their lack of openness and potentially a desire to use state power to build a competitive moat.
In spite of the name, OpenAI isn't open, it's just a business. There were some lofty initial goals but the funding for those ran out. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to exist. People can make closed stuff.
Burdensome and unrealistic requirements will hurt smaller and more open efforts even more than it will hurt mega players, since the mega players can afford to jump through hoops and keep regulators at bay with a wall of attorneys.
> In some cases, sure, there is an identifiable source but most of the output is novel and the product of substantially all the input
I think you skipped past the first paragraph:
> Makers of artificial-intelligence tools such as ChatGPT would be required to disclose copyright material used in building their systems, according to a new draft of European Union legislation
Article 29, "Obligations of users of high-risk AI systems", where "high risk" systems are biometric identification, hiring, education, law enforcement, critical infrastructure, access to essential services, migration and the justice system?
What does this have to do with "ChatGPT disclosing sources" as a generalized statement?
Those are areas where complete transparency is absolutely required and you may use ChatGPT to meddle with them at your own peril.
Wow. I am not a fan of poetry but this one is just too good. It's also pretty spot on, like someone has put his mind in getting the scene right. Europe going into AI darkness predicted by nullc prompt-GPT-4 28 April 2023.
Not especially probable. What examples exist of a big company abandoning Europe for its legislation? From time to time you hear suggestions about it but I cam't recall it happen. That market is too valuable to leave alone.
It's common for businesses to abandon markets with burdensome regulation, I think your perspective may being distorted by software where there is little cause because regulation of software is uncommon. If you look to any highly regulated product like vehicles or medical devices products are often market specific (food too, but there are additional reasons there). But even online it's far from unheard of: post GDPR many US media outlets simply ban Europe entirely, and the requirements there seem far less burdensome than making generative AI accurately and specifically attribute their 'sources'.
Depending on the specifics someone might bolt on an attribution network but the results will frequently be nonsense. A tool like that might be somewhat useful on its own (since it could attribute non-AI output too), if its limitations were understood but essentially it would just be an internet search (which already exists, so presumably its not enough!). If it would satisfy the regulation it would make business sense to build it over blocking, but requiring it would also act as a moat that decreased competition in the field and as a result harm all of us.
GPT4 low temp continuation of a prompt roughly, "Write a brief poem that tells the story of how Europe was banned from AI. To make themselves sound important european politicans passed a law requiring AI to attribute its output to specific sources, but this is impossible because every source influences every output of the AI, not unlike a human mind. Because they couldn't comply the AI developers just banned all of Europe from accessing their AI sending Europe into an intellectual dark age without the access to powerful AI.", plus a few high temp retries of a few verses that I didn't like the flow of in the initial output.
