News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Talk-Llama by davepeck on Thursday November 02, 2023 @10:29AM (#38113985)
This assertion is not supported by the text of Biden’s Executive Order. There are a number of requirements placed on various government agencies to come up with safety evaluation frameworks, to make initial evaluations related to open weight models, and to provide recommendations back to the President within 270 days. But there’s nothing whatsoever that I can find that outlaws open weight models. There’s also little reason to think that “outlaw them” would be amongst the recommendations ultimately provided to the executive.

(I can imagine recommendations that benefit incumbents by, for instance, placing such high burden on government adoption of open weight models that OpenAI is a much more attractive purchase. But that’s not the same as what you’re talking about.)

I dunno, the EO seems pretty easy to read. Am I missing something in the text?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...

Re:Talk-Llama by s1gnp0st on Thursday November 02, 2023 @10:59AM (#38114412)
Yeah, they're not going to outlaw them. The well-worn path is to make the regulatory burden insurmountable for small companies; that will be enough.

Disobey.

Re:Talk-Llama by renewiltord on Thursday November 02, 2023 @12:56PM (#38116496)
How does one provide the KYC information for open models?
Re:Talk-Llama by selfhoster11 on Thursday November 02, 2023 @03:10PM (#38118522)
More to the point, why in the world should anyone "know" me to download a file? A simple antithesis of open technology, that's what this proposal is.
Re:Talk-Llama by dragonwriter on Thursday November 02, 2023 @07:02PM (#38121615)
Nothing in the order requires KYC information for open models.