Hi Luis, Before diving down that rabbit hole, at least so far as WMF ML is concerned, we should remember that the Directive would apply to *high risk* AI systems. This will be a legally-defined category of systems. Exactly what that will encompass is still up for debate, but you can at least see the sort thing the European Commission proposers have in mind - see Annexes II and III here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206#document2
Regards, Phil On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 16:28, Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:39 AM Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> ====== >> >> AI Liability >> >> ====== >> >> The European Commission presented a new AI Liability Directive. [4] The >> stated goal is to complement the AI Act in making sure people and companies >> who were harmed by high-risk AI systems (think recruitment, admissions, >> autonomous drones, self-driving cars) are able to seek damages. Under the >> proposed text the burden of proof on the claimant would be reversed under >> certain conditions, as it would be very hard for an outside person to >> understand how the AI algorithm works. Also, courts will have the explicit >> right to request companies to disclose technical information about their >> algorithms. >> > > I would love to see any smart commentary on this that people have seen — > so far I’ve seen very little. Bonus if it’s from European attorneys who are > trying to explain EU product liability context to American audiences :) > > Potentially an important wrinkle on this for this audience: per the > explanatory documents: > > “In order not to hamper innovation or research, this Directive should not > apply to free and open-source software *developed … outside the course of > a commercial activity**.”* > > Emphasis mine - does this mean that open source developed by companies > (such as, at this point, much of the php stack WMF relies on, and at least > part of the python ML stack that I assume WMF ML uses) is *not exempted *from > this directive? > > “This is in particular the case for software...that is openly shared and > freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable.” > > Similarly: much ML software is *not *freely usable in the OSI sense, > because of ethical field of use restrictions. Is ethical ML *more *liable > than fully free ML? > > Related: this is just an experiment, and I don’t know how long I can keep > it up, but I’m writing a newsletter on the overlap of open and ml that I > suspect might be of interest to some folks here: https://openml.fyi > > Yours in open- > Luis > >> _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
