Senate Introduces Bill To Setup Legal Framework For Ethical AI Development (techspot.com) 48
Last week, the U.S. Senate introduced a new bill to outlaw the unethical use of AI-generated content and deepfake technology. Called the Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act), the bill would "set new federal transparency guidelines for marking, authenticating and detecting AI-generated content, protect journalists, actors and artists against AI-driven theft, and hold violators accountable for abuses." TechSpot reports: Proposed and sponsored by Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, along with Republican Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, the aims to establish enforceable transparency standards in AI development [such a through watermarking]. The legislation also wants to curb unauthorized data use in training models. The senators intend to task the National Institutes of Standards and Technology with developing sensible transparency guidelines should the bill pass. [...] The senators feel that clarifying and defining what is okay and what is not regarding AI development is vital in protecting citizens, artists, and public figures from the harm that misuse of the technology could cause, particularly in creating deepfakes. The text of the bill can be read here.
Next up, laws banning crime (Score:4, Funny)
Earlier today, the Senate passed and the President signed the No Crimes Allowed bill which makes all criminal and unethical activities illegal.
By noon, shortly after the signing ceremony, all crime had stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Had it been the No Operating in a Criminal Racket, Illegality, Misdeed, or other Evil (NOCRIME) bill, you’d have had me convinced.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this is nonsense. Like, for example, watermarking requirements. Even if they're literally baked into the model itself, you can train (or now, ablate!) anything out of a model in a matter of hours. And even with proprietary models, do they plan to block access to models from overseas? Is the US going to start censoring the internet? Maybe a Great Firewall of America to keep AI out?
They also want to fund "AI detectors". I hate to inform them, but while you can make an AI detector for a *specific mode
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because laws are useless?
WTF is wrong with you?
Define Unethical. (Score:3)
the U.S. Senate introduced a new bill to outlaw the unethical use of AI-generated content and deepfake technology..
I see Government seems to only be concerned about one kind of abuse, as if there’s some valid ethical reason for creating deepfakes to manipulate people in the worst way.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics are a personal matter.
All Congress can do is make use illegal, or not.
Re:Define Unethical. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ethics are a personal matter.
All Congress can do is make use illegal, or not.
If Ethics is nothing but a “personal matter”, define Ethics for me then. In order to fucking clarify a Governments authority over it.
I’d also like to know how and why a “personal matter” has become mandatory corporate training.
Bullshit excuses, are bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics are "personal" in regard to the group you're in.
For instance in some groups it's absolutely OK to go and murder/enslave members of another group. (Colonizers vs native population comes to mind as an example)
Cutting off hands of thieves has been perfectly ethical for many centuries.
This AI regulation is actually a real opportunity for broad discussion as a society of what is OK, what is not, and make laws out of that discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not excusing anything.
My point was that Congress has no authority of ethics, only legality.
Meaning an opinion? (Score:2)
Here, I'll Google it for you...
"ethics
1.
moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
"medical ethics also enter into the question"
the moral correctness of specified conduct.
"many scientists question the ethics of cruel experiments""
Differing from person to person, and often are hard to precisely measure or define? And even chan
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics are a personal matter.
Numerous professional societies, agencies, organizations, and other institutions would beg to differ. Many people here (e.g. any P.E., M.D., fiduciary, etc.) have ethical obligations to either engage in or not engage in certain behaviors. Many of those obligations either carry the force of law or else have significant consequences (e.g. you can no longer practice), regardless of your personal views toward them.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it's a personal matter.
When you join those groups, you can adopt the group's ethical standard as your personal ethics, or find another group.
Re: (Score:2)
When you join those groups, you can adopt the group's ethical standard as your personal ethics, or find another group.
Not so. Many of those groups have been granted a monopoly over their practice area. Good luck practicing medicine or law or professional engineering without being member of the requisite professional organization.
Re: (Score:1)
As I said, if you don't want to adopt the group's ethics as your own, you can go join another group.
Yes, that means that instead of being a lawyer you may have to work a fry station. Choices have consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's back up. When you say ethics are personal, what do you mean? Because I feel like you just argued my point very successfully, which makes me feel like we're talking past each other.
When I say that ethics are not merelypersonal, I mean that ethics exist outside of you, regardless of your opinions towards them, hence why they are capable of being imposed on you in the first place. The fact that society says you can't separate the choice to become a lawyer from the choice to adopt the ethics of the bar as
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics are a personal matter.
All Congress can do is make use illegal, or not.
I agree. Governance is fundamentally underwritten by consent / legitimacy not ethics or morality. Morality is driven by the sensibilities of the governed not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
First Amendment (Score:1)
How in the world does this not run afoul of free speech? Who gives a flying f*** what tooling you use to make your nudie pics??
Re:First Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
How in the world does this not run afoul of free speech? Who gives a flying f*** what tooling you use to make your nudie pics??
You *might* have a different opinion when it's your daughter or son coming home in tears threatening to end it all over the deepfake porn pics that went viral at school. Just saying.
Free "speech" as you argue, does not come without consequence that most simply dismiss these days. Unsurprising behavior from the generation that absolutely denies the concept of accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even adults can't handle social media.
When society finds that even adults are incapable of handling something, they usually consider making it illegal. For everyone.
Naturally, all concerns with social media are simply dismissed by Greed profiting off it. Professional Narcissist is now a valid job thanks to social media rewarding the best of them with massive financial benefit.
And then, there’s the mass addiction. When everyone is addicted, there is no such thing as an “addict”. That’s just another enthusiastic user w
Re: (Score:1)
You sell your rights cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
You *might* have a different opinion when it's your daughter or son coming home in tears threatening to end it all over the deepfake porn pics that went viral at school. Just saying.
The bill neither outlaws or prevents "deepfake porn pics".
Unsurprising behavior from the generation that absolutely denies the concept of accountability.
Adults who allow their children to participate in online spaces overseen by lord of the flies would be the first place I would look for "accountability".
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that this all started with AI and was impossible with earlier tools such as Photoshop. *eyeroll*.
Re: (Score:2)
Photoshopping faces onto different bodies is hardly harder than deepfakes.
Re: (Score:2)
You *might* have a different opinion when it's your daughter or son coming home in tears threatening to end it all over the deepfake porn pics that went viral at school. Just saying.
That sounds like a use of the AI, not the AI itself, and something that violates existing laws already... how does that hypothetical change or address OP's concern over the use of the term "ethical?" Seems like a diversionary appeal to emotion.
Unsurprising behavior from the generation that absolutely denies the concept of accountability.
A generation is not a monolith; so what you say literally doesn't exist IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
How in the world does this not run afoul of free speech?
From my read it is a bunch of "clever" lawyers trying to expand definitions and trying to impose technical requirements on systems and modalities to avoid free speech entanglements.
"A violation of this Act or a regulation promulgated under this Act shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.1057a(a)(1)(B))."
The legislation as written effectively imposes sweeping industry wide wat
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds about right.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech doesn't mean you get to say and do whatever you want. There are a ton of limits of speech that you depend on every single day. We even have compelled speech. Oh, no!
Here in reality, you want truth in advertising. You want rules about product labeling. You want disclosures on political advertising. You want (some) copyright and trademark protections. You want libel laws. These things are essential to a free and functioning society. Oh, but they "run afoul of free speech" so you thoughtle
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech doesn't mean you get to say and do whatever you want.
Yeah, it kind of does mean that.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why everyone thinks your really stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant retort.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech doesn't mean you get to say and do whatever you want. There are a ton of limits of speech that you depend on every single day. We even have compelled speech. Oh, no!
Here in reality, you want truth in advertising. You want rules about product labeling. You want disclosures on political advertising. You want (some) copyright and trademark protections. You want libel laws. These things are essential to a free and functioning society. Oh, but they "run afoul of free speech" so you thoughtless "free speech" absolutists would do away with all of them.
The right to free speech is indeed absolute. The trouble is some are confused as to its meaning. They conflate action with speech or otherwise confuse the concept of free speech with anarchy.
For example political advertising that deliberately reminds people to vote on the wrong day or at the wrong location. Intentional deception to disenfranchise voters is an illegal act.
Similarly in the case of libel knowingly spreading lies about someone to ruin their reputation is an illegal act.
In both cases one has
Very misguided. (Score:2, Troll)
This will not stop bad actors from misusing the tech, but it will be a burden for people looking to develop the technology for beneficial purposes.
Insane bill not just about "AI" (Score:3)
"The term 'synthetic content' means information, including works of human authorship such as images, videos, audio clips, and text, that has been wholly generated by algorithms, including by artificial intelligence."
"any person who, for a commercial purpose, makes available in interstate commerce a tool
used for the primary purpose of creating synthetic content or synthetically-modified content shall
establish, to the extent technically feasible, reasonable security measures to ensure that such content provenance information is machine-readable and not easily removed, altered, or separated from the underlying content."
So anyone who sells software that for example detects and logs events, monitors systems or generates reports (all text and images wholly generated by algorithms) has to modify their software to somehow make sure all outputs contain some sort of robust watermark?? WTF.
"The term 'covered content' means a digital representation, such as text, an image, or audio or video content, of any work of authorship described in section 102 of title 17, United States Code."
"It shall be unlawful for any person, for a commercial purpose, to knowingly use any covered content that has content provenance information that is attached to or associated with such covered content or covered content from which the person knows or should know that content provenance information has been removed or separated in violation of subsection (b), in order to train a system that uses artificial intelligence or an algorithm or to generate synthetic content or synthetically-modified content unless such person obtains the express, informed consent of the person who owns the covered content, and complies with any terms of use pertaining to the use of such content, including terms regarding compensation for such use, as required by the owner of copyright in such content."
Allowing copyright holders to control how their works are used rather than merely controlling the reproduction and performance of copyrighted works and their derivatives is a massive expansion of copyright regime I do not support. Copyright regime is already too expansive and already fails to balance competing public interests.
This of course isn't limited to transformer based content generators. Anyone using copyrighted works to train classifiers, upscalers or develop systems that intelligently control levels such as dynamic range and saturation now have to get permission from rights holders to train their systems.
Re: (Score:1)
> or an algorithm or to generate synthetic content or synthetically-modified content
This seems way too broad; broad enough to target techniques used for ages in music production. sampling, pitch shifting, looping, vocoding, autotuning.
Synthetic techniques are all over art, not just music.
Set up, not setup (Score:2)
"Set up" is the phrasal verb, you don't want the noun "setup".
for example (Score:1)
Senate Ethics (Score:1)
Senate? Ethics? (Score:2)