> all training data be "relevant, representative, free of errors and complete."
This is especially interesting to me with regard to something like ChatGPT. As we know, ChatGPT occasionally gives factually incorrect information. Does this mean that, in its current form, it would be illegal in EU? We know that Google is currently blocking access to Bard in EU. Will ChatGPT be forced to follow suit?
ChatGPT is great and I love it. It would be a shame if I'm not even allowed to use it _at my own risk_ just because it might be wrong about some things. This seems like a simplification, but it sounds like EU is allowing Perfect to be the enemy of Good.
I have a feeling they might be looking for "equality" with this formulation. However, if it is representative of the real world, it will often not be in line with the norms prescribed by the notion of equality.
I am wondering what qualifies as "complete", though. Any reasonable definition I can come up with is redundant with "representative" and "free of errors".
From I read earlier (I did not waste time on this article again) EU rules in the propisal that is not definite are about critical stuff.
I agree that would be idiotic to let some greedy bastards sell some MedicalGPT to us, or PoliceGPT, SurveilenceGPT.
Imagine the MedicaGPT will give you different treatment each time you ask since is not deterministic, or if you change the patient name from Bob to John then it gives you some wild results because test data had tons of hon Smiths in and nobody can explain this AIs reasoning.
So IMO for critical systems we need good rules for safety reasons, for non critical systems we need transparency and if you sell an AI product you should also take responsibility if it performs worse then you advertise. Like you can't SELL me a GPT for schools with a shit disclaimer "it might be wrong sometimes and teach the students wrong stuff, or it might sometimes be NSFW" , IMO fuck this ToS where this giants sell us stuff and take no responsibility on the quality of the product.
Can you explain where I am wrong? ChatGPT is non deterministic, did OpenAI sabotaged it intentionally ?
I do not this tech banned, but regulated for safety reason in critical systems.
I already get daily spam emails from greedy fucks that want to sell me AI for X, where I am 100% this greedy fucks do not understand the science behind this stuff but just want to make money.
ChatGPT is intentionally nondeterministic for the same reason that GPT3 is nondeterministic by default. temperature>0 results in a better user experience. I'm having a hard time understanding why you'd think a neural network could unintentionally be nondeterministic. If you want inference to be deterministic, just use the same seed every time.
I also have no idea what your spam emails has to do with training models. The linked law prevents companies in the EU from releasing or deploying large models. It does not prevent grifters from spamming you. (not that there are any companies in the EU training state of the art models, but that's a separate issue)
> all training data be "relevant, representative, free of errors and complete."
This is especially interesting to me with regard to something like ChatGPT. As we know, ChatGPT occasionally gives factually incorrect information. Does this mean that, in its current form, it would be illegal in EU? We know that Google is currently blocking access to Bard in EU. Will ChatGPT be forced to follow suit?
ChatGPT is great and I love it. It would be a shame if I'm not even allowed to use it _at my own risk_ just because it might be wrong about some things. This seems like a simplification, but it sounds like EU is allowing Perfect to be the enemy of Good.