8 ms·

>bans on open weight models Source for that? Cause all I could find is: >Our view is that regulation of frontier models should focus on empirically measured

• matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48470326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48470326
  • gAI 3mo ago
    So this hinges on a reading of SB 1047 that interpreted the full shutdown requirement as impossible for an open-weight LLM. But it looks like that was already addressed. Here's an analysis: >Clarifying the scope of a “full shutdown.” SB 1047’s “full shutdown” requirement has been a source of constant consternation for the open-source community. CalChamber explains: >Under SB 1047, developers must build “full shutdown” capabilities into their models and may be held liable for downstream uses over which they have no control, impeding their ability to open-source their models. Ultimately, liability should rest with the user who intended to do harm, as opposed to automatically defaulting to the developer who could not foresee, let alone block, any and all conceivable uses of a model that might do harm. While recent amendments seemingly seek to narrow what is meant by “full shutdown” capabilities, the exclusions are unnecessarily difficult to interpret as drafted (full shutdown “does not mean the cessation of operation of a covered model to which access was granted pursuant to a license that was not created by the licensor…”) and altogether insufficient. >Committee amendments simplify and clarify the definition of “full shutdown” such that the shutdown capability can be implemented into hardware used to train or run a model, rather than the model itself. The amendments also serve to exclude covered model derivatives that are outside of the developer’s control. -https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-06/sb-1047-wiener-apcp-analysis_0.pdf https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-06/sb-1047-wi...
    • matheusmoreira 3mo ago
      > may be held liable for downstream uses over which they have no control Equivalent to a ban. Nobody is going to host or invest in this stuff if they suddenly become liable for everything it does. This is equivalent to repealing the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA.
      • gAI 3mo ago
        >Committee amendments simplify and clarify the definition of “full shutdown” such that the shutdown capability can be implemented into hardware used to train or run a model, rather than the model itself. The amendments also serve to exclude covered model derivatives that are outside of the developer’s control.
        • staticman2 3mo ago
          I get the impression you are conflating whether a developer can be sued to oblivion for not implementing a "full shutdown" process that applies to finetunes versus whether they can be sued to oblivion for releasing a model that may cause "critical harm" when finetuned. I'm confused why you think the only legal requirement is a "full shutdown" process. The text is there and I see a heck of a lot of requirements that are not about full shutdowns.
          • gAI 3mo ago
            I get the impression that the full shutdown requirement is the main concern for open-weight from: >SB 1047’s “full shutdown” requirement has been a source of constant consternation for the open-source community. And I get the impression it's been addressed from the quote you're responding to. Neither mentions fine-tuning, which is defined elsewhere in the document. I'm not a lawyer, though, just relying on the analysis.
            • deleted 3mo ago
              [deleted]
            • 3mo ago