You think opensource models should be immune from the requirement to document how they behave and waht data was used to train them just because they are opensource?
If you take it and then do something harmful with it then that should be regulated.
I'm shocked that anyone could think otherwise. Do you have provide documentation on the development process for any other software? Of course not! This is is no different.
For some unspecified definition of harm.
Immediate question: where is the data for learing coming from?
> I'm shocked that anyone could think otherwise. Do you have provide documentation on the development process for any other software? Of course not! This is is no different.
Of course this is different. Since you're training a foundational model that you want others to use everywhere, those who will use it need to know what exactly you trained it with, and where that data is coming from. The users of your data are liable for problems and issues arising from how you trained the model.
E.g. you claim your model is good for using in court proceedings. Somehow you want no responsibility for the outcome of your training even if all you did was train it on screenplays from court dramas. We just have to take your word at face value.
That's exactly my point, if someone wants to use a foundation model they won't use one that they aren't convinced works for their purpose. There is no need for a regulation here. If I open source a model on github but don't document it people won't use it relative to one that is documented.
> E.g. you claim your model is good for using in court proceedings. Somehow you want no responsibility for the outcome of your training even if all you did was train it on screenplays from court dramas. We just have to take your word at face value.
Again, exactly my point. If you are building a lawyer AI bot and use a crappy foundation model as a base the problem is not in the foundation model but in your application. If something bad happens the you the application developer should be held responsible. Which the EU regulation does a good job of regulating and no one is arguing against that part.
The issue with the EU regulation, and your arguments, is that they effect a level too low.
If some company uses those tools to create a some kind of product that breaks the law or causes social harm then the law should regulate that specifically. The proposed regulation does a good job of this actually.
But from the way you write, with grand sweeping "we" statements and gesturing vaguely at potential harms and eventual doom, you seem pretty close minded. Perhaps you just don't like that people like these kinds of products and instead of accepting that other people might think differently than you you're self-righteously moralizing about it.