GitHub CEO On Why Open Source Developers Should Be Exempt From the EU's AI Act (techcrunch.com) 28
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: GitHub CEO Thomas Dohmke says that open source developers should be made exempt from the European Union's (EU) proposed new artificial intelligence (AI) regulations, saying that the opportunity is still there for Europe to lead on AI. "Open source is forming the foundation of AI in Europe," Dohmke said onstage at the EU Open Source Policy Summit in Brussels. "The U.S. and China don't have to win it all." The regulations in question come via The Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), first proposed back in April 2021 to address the growing reach of AI into our every day lives. The rules would govern AI applications based on their perceived risks, and would effectively be the first AI-centric laws introduced by any major regulatory body. The European Parliament is set to vote on a draft version of the AI Act in the coming months, and depending on what discussions and debates follow, it could be adopted by the end of 2023.
As many will know, open source and AI are intrinsically linked, given that collaboration and shared data are pivotal to developing AI systems. As well-meaning as the AI Act might be, critics argue that it could have significant unintended consequences for the open source community, which in turn could hamper the progress of AI. The crux of the problem is that the Act would likely create legal liability for general purpose AI systems (GPAI), and bestow more power and control to the big tech firms given that independent open source developers don't have the resources to contend with legal wrangles. [...] "The AI act is so crucial," Dohmke said onstage. "This policy could well set the precedent for how the world regulates AI. It is foundationally important. It is important for European technological leadership, and for the future of the European economy itself. It must be fair and balanced to the open source community."
Dohmke said that the AI Act can bring "the benefits of AI according to the European values and fundamental rights," adding that lawmakers have a big part to play in achieving this. "This is why I believe that the open source developers should be exempt from the AI act," he said. "Because ultimately this comes down to people. The open source community is not a community of entities. It's a community of people and the compliance burden should fall on entities, it should fall on companies that are shipping products. OSS developers are often just volunteers, many of them are working two jobs. They are hobbyists and scientists, academics and doctors, professors and university students all alike, and they don't usually stand to profit from their contributions. They certainly don't have big budgets, or their own compliance department."
As many will know, open source and AI are intrinsically linked, given that collaboration and shared data are pivotal to developing AI systems. As well-meaning as the AI Act might be, critics argue that it could have significant unintended consequences for the open source community, which in turn could hamper the progress of AI. The crux of the problem is that the Act would likely create legal liability for general purpose AI systems (GPAI), and bestow more power and control to the big tech firms given that independent open source developers don't have the resources to contend with legal wrangles. [...] "The AI act is so crucial," Dohmke said onstage. "This policy could well set the precedent for how the world regulates AI. It is foundationally important. It is important for European technological leadership, and for the future of the European economy itself. It must be fair and balanced to the open source community."
Dohmke said that the AI Act can bring "the benefits of AI according to the European values and fundamental rights," adding that lawmakers have a big part to play in achieving this. "This is why I believe that the open source developers should be exempt from the AI act," he said. "Because ultimately this comes down to people. The open source community is not a community of entities. It's a community of people and the compliance burden should fall on entities, it should fall on companies that are shipping products. OSS developers are often just volunteers, many of them are working two jobs. They are hobbyists and scientists, academics and doctors, professors and university students all alike, and they don't usually stand to profit from their contributions. They certainly don't have big budgets, or their own compliance department."
a collection of terrible ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
If open source will form the foundation of AI in Europe, the open source should be the PRIMARY target of EU regulation on AI, not be exempt from it. Apparently, the view here is that regulations are intended to pick winners and losers, not to be a benefit to society. And what's wrong with accountability? The last thing needed is to exempt certain developers so that they compete more easily while not being liable for what their negligence might cause.
Re:a collection of terrible ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with your conclusion that this is an absolutely terrible idea but I have a different take.
1. If this Act is implemented companies will just open source their AI to get around such limitations. That's not solving the problem.
2. Whether AI source is open or closed is irrelevant. A "bad actor" is a bad actor, whether that be the AI systems themselves, or entities such as governmental misuse of it -- the availability of source doesn't changed that.
Good laws in respective countries need to be followed. If the laws are unjust then citizens need to repel bad laws; not complicate law books by petitioning exemptions because they are "special" IMHO.
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently, the view here is that regulations are intended to pick winners and losers, not to be a benefit to society. And what's wrong with accountability?
Because they are asking individuals to pay tens of thousands of euros for "sharing their personal hobby"
Regulating a tax on talking about your hobby projects is no more a benefit to society than a tax on posting about that rare stamp you just added to your collection, and a tax on posting a picture you painted.
This isn't going to result in somehow protecting society. It's going to result in people simply not sharing their hobbies.
It also isn't going to prevent anything you believe needs accountability. Qu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
of course nobody here has even skim-read the "ai act proposal", probably not even github's ceo nor the techcrunch editor paid to produce his pr. nothing in that proposal remotely affects opensource hobbyist projects.
next nonexistent problem to set our hair on fire about, please?
Re: (Score:3)
If it moves, Tax it. If it keeps moving, Regulate it. And if it stops moving, Subsidize it.
-Ronald Reagan
Re: a collection of terrible ideas (Score:2)
Regulation is a tax on progress. EU is already overregulated, all this will do is encourage more companies to leave for China, Dubai and other countries where the EU has no power which is really bad for anyone that thinks human rights are important as eventually Europe will lose the economic advantage and have to bend the knee to those countries that arenâ(TM)t quite as progressive on those issues.
US lobbyists in Brussels (Score:2)
Github is a US company, they should not lobby the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:US lobbyists in Brussels (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic I should be exempt from following US laws when I'm visiting the US, because I'm a EU citizen.
I'll refer the police to your legal analysis after my crime spree in the US...
Re: US lobbyists in Brussels (Score:2)
You are only liable for crimes if you are physically in the US. GitHub isnâ(TM)t physically present in the EU, they should not have to comply with EU law. Your argument makes about as much sense as beheading LGBT people in EU because Iran demands you to.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... "GitHub is a remote-first company with offices located throughout the US, Europe, and Asia", per https://github.com/about/caree... [github.com]. I'm pretty sure they still have a physical office in Amsterdam, at least. They're also part of Microsoft, which is physically present in most EU countries.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be surprised if they are all the same corporate entity. Typically offices in different countries operate as independent entities. If anything, only GitHub in Europe would have to comply with onerous regulations, which they could just offer to host all content in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
I am personally very ok with anyone on the planet sending interesting arguments to fuel the public debate. We need best advice from competent people to guide the politicians, who are usually trained in economics and law and rarely come from an engineering background. As long as the arguments in the lobbying effort emphasize what is good for the society in general, it's fine. If it also happens to be good for his business it is not a problem. Others from other businesses will show up and present other argume
Re: (Score:2)
"Is Mack a US truck maker since it was purchased by Volvo? Is Volvo a European company now that it is owned by a Chinese fund?"
Only Volvo Personvagnar was sold off from the Volvo Group to the chinese fund. The rest of Volvo Group, including Lastvagnar, Specialty Vehicles, Heavy and Marine motor development and production departments for example, are not.
Fairly important distinction to keep in mind in regards to discussing EU policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only of Volvo Personvagnar(Volvo Cars internationally), which are not part of the Volvo Group any more.
Re: (Score:2)
You are very much wrong. Geely is not involved with Volvo Group, they only own the brand for passenger vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
The Volvo that makes trucks, earthmoving equipment, diesel marine engines, etc. is still the original Volvo, and still at least nominally Swedish. The Volvo car brand was sold to the Chinese company Geely.
On the topic of trucks, it's getting hard to keep track of who owns which brand. For example UD was acquired by Nissan in 1960, bought by Volvo in 2007, and then transferred to Isu
Re: (Score:1)
They may be a US company (aka Microsoft), but they do have a stake in the EU to lobby as they also have offices/staff and business there.
Github also has a vested interest in protecting their user base in the EU and having to deal with legal requests or monitoring open source projects is going to be a massive burden on them to comply with. So doubtful they want to be policing all of Github in the EU and any devs in the EU that use the platform to ensure laws are not being broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Github is a US company, they should not lobby the EU.
Does the EU intend it's regulation to apply to projects on GitHub?
-If no, then you are right -GitHub should stay out of it.
-If yes, then GitHub has a vested interest in the regulations.
Re: US lobbyists in Brussels (Score:2)
The EU intends to regulate the world with things like GDPR, the fact they make a claim does not mean the claim is legal.
EU are protectionist above all, they will just block GitHub from being used by EU businesses, governments and schools in favor of some German company with an SVN server.
Noting who owns Github (Score:2)
Usage is affected not development of (Score:4, Interesting)
Open source developers have nothing to fear from EU Al regulation. De developed technology, the source code, even the datasets can all be developed in an open source fashion without any limitations. Using the technology, the result models, that will get some conditions.
If Github is so pro open source, why are they hiding theirs?
open source developers don't have the resources (Score:3)
>open source developers don't have the resources to contend with legal wrangles
Do they have the resources to do AI anyway? Also what it is a oss developper? If google release source code of a model but not the checkpoint, they become oss? However I'm sure the regulation will hurt business in UE, won't protect citizens from FAANG, ensure EU stays out of any AI innovation and be dependent of US.
Nope.. (Score:2)