Well, consider the case with murder: they're not demanding that people proactively implement a system to prevent it from happening, are they? You're just not allowed to do it, in the sense that the system will attempt to find you, prove your guilt, and punish you after the fact.
I imagine it would be the same for making (use of) models which don't add these watermarks, no? The punishable crime is providing or using the service.
You can trivially enforce that at the AI provider level, which covers 99% of the problem the law is designed to address.
Of course it doesn't cover the issue of foreign state psyop operations but the fact that enforcing laws against organized crime and adversary state actors is hard isn't specific to AI.
You don't have to prove anything? You just have to mark the outputs of your slop generator appropriately. "Proving" one way or another is their problem when it comes to enforcement.
Do you mean the same EU whose Euro6 mandate brought powerful auto giants like Volkswagen to their knees, and forced them to build better vehicles that are less harmful to Earth?
Or do you mean the EU that forced Apple to finally ditch its proprietary Lightning port on its iDevices and replace it with the universally compatable USB-C instead?
Or do you mean the EU that mandated the Right to Repair so manufacturers were forced to reduce planned obsolence?
Oh, and by the way, India mandated the same kind of norms too. And guess what? That nation is faring off better thanks to such societal-friendly governance.
Yeah, they also outlawed murder. And stealing. And bribing officials. All universally unenforceable. Weird...
Well, consider the case with murder: they're not demanding that people proactively implement a system to prevent it from happening, are they? You're just not allowed to do it, in the sense that the system will attempt to find you, prove your guilt, and punish you after the fact.
I imagine it would be the same for making (use of) models which don't add these watermarks, no? The punishable crime is providing or using the service.
> they're not demanding that people proactively implement a system to prevent it from happening, are they?
What do you think a "background check" is?
2 replies →
There are various systems meant to (attempt to) prevent it from happening, yes, from firearms laws to police forces
But picking out murder and ignoring the other ones which are far more analogous to the regulations mentioned seems a bit disingenuous...
It's regulation for providers, so it's easy to enforce.
What do you mean? There is nothing unenforceable about this.
How would you prove that something was generated by AI yet did not include a watermark?
You can trivially enforce that at the AI provider level, which covers 99% of the problem the law is designed to address.
Of course it doesn't cover the issue of foreign state psyop operations but the fact that enforcing laws against organized crime and adversary state actors is hard isn't specific to AI.
6 replies →
You generate it with that particular AI and look for the watermark :/
You don't have to prove anything? You just have to mark the outputs of your slop generator appropriately. "Proving" one way or another is their problem when it comes to enforcement.
1 reply →
Do you mean the same EU whose Euro6 mandate brought powerful auto giants like Volkswagen to their knees, and forced them to build better vehicles that are less harmful to Earth?
Or do you mean the EU that forced Apple to finally ditch its proprietary Lightning port on its iDevices and replace it with the universally compatable USB-C instead?
Or do you mean the EU that mandated the Right to Repair so manufacturers were forced to reduce planned obsolence?
Oh, and by the way, India mandated the same kind of norms too. And guess what? That nation is faring off better thanks to such societal-friendly governance.