←back to thread

324 points rntn | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
ankit219 ◴[] No.44608660[source]
Not just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of practice is voluntary and goes beyond what is in the act itself. EU published it in a way to say that there would be less scrutiny if you voluntarily sign up for this code of practice. Meta would anyway face scrutiny on all ends, so does not seem to a plausible case to sign something voluntary.

One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For open source, it's a very hard requirement[1].

> GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works.

[1] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-r...

replies(8): >>44610592 #>>44610641 #>>44610669 #>>44611112 #>>44612330 #>>44613357 #>>44617228 #>>44620292 #
m3sta ◴[] No.44612330[source]
The quoted text makes sense when you understand that the EU provides a carveout for training on copyright protected works without a license. It's quite an elegant balance they've suggested despite the challenges it fails to avoid.
replies(1): >>44613883 #
Oras ◴[] No.44613883[source]
Is that true? How can they decide to wipe out the intellectual property for an individual or entity? It’s not theirs to give it away.
replies(3): >>44613962 #>>44614016 #>>44616465 #
1. arccy ◴[] No.44614016[source]
"intellectual property" only exists because society collectively allows it to. it's not some inviolable law of nature. society (or the government that represents them) can revoke it or give it away.
replies(3): >>44614158 #>>44614667 #>>44617678 #
2. impossiblefork ◴[] No.44614158[source]
Yes, but that's also true of all other things that society enforces-- basically the ownership of anything you can't carry with you.
replies(1): >>44614787 #
3. figassis ◴[] No.44614667[source]
You're alive because society collective allows you to.
replies(1): >>44614973 #
4. CaptainFever ◴[] No.44614787[source]
Yes, that is why (most?) anarchists consider property that one is not occupying and using to be fiction, held up by the state. I believe this includes intellectual property as well.
5. lioeters ◴[] No.44614973[source]
A person being alive is not at all similar to the concept of intellectual property existing. The former is a natural phenomenon, the latter is a social construct.
6. layer8 ◴[] No.44617678[source]
The same is true for human rights.

In the EU, an author’s moral rights are similar in character to human rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors'_rights