For those missing the nail-biting drama around California's much hyped upcoming AI Safety Bill (๐ฆ๐-๐ญ๐ฌ๐ฐ๐ณ), here's a brief summary:
๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐น๐น ๐๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐?
Senate Bill 1047 targets AI models trained above specific compute and cost thresholds. Unlike the EU AI Act, it regulates at the model level, not the application level. (Bill details- https://lnkd.in/gdMfe_XR)
๐ ๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐
The bill holds developers responsible for misuse of their models, even if someone else is modifying or fine-tuning their models.
๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐
Aอnอdอrอeอwอ อNอgอ: Compares it to holding motor manufacturers liable for misuse of motors. He argues that regulating AI models instead of specific applications could stifle innovation and beneficial uses of AI. (https://lnkd.in/gScD4Dem)
Yอaอnอnอ อLอeอCอuอnอ: Warns of "apocalyptic consequences on the AI ecosystem" if R&D is regulated. He believes the bill creates obstacles for open research and open-source AI platforms. (https://lnkd.in/gm-nzdHg)
๐ฆ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐
Gอeอoอfอfอrอeอyอ อHอiอnอtอoอnอ and Yอoอsอhอuอaอ อBอeอnอgอiอoอ: View it as a sensible approach to balance the potential and risks of AI. (https://lnkd.in/gV6Tj7gx)
๐ฃ๐ผ๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฒ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ
Should regulation be at the model level or the application level?
Our ๐ง๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ?
While both perspectives are equally important, after reading the requirements in detail I strongly see the need for more RAI experts, ethicists, policymakers, and lawyers to work closely with the AI teams right from the beginning. I am imagining a more balanced approach: 80% responsibility at the application level (especially for fine-tuned models) and 20% at the developer level. This distribution could better balance innovation with safety concerns.
๐ง๐ต๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต๐๐?