The safeguards, for anyone like me who didn’t know about them until now.
Basically, the guidelines include:
- Ensuring AI systems are safe before public release.
- Building AI systems to address issues like bias and discrimination.
- Using AI to enhance security and protect privacy.
- Sharing best practices across the industry.
- Increasing transparency and providing clarity about AI’s capabilities and limitations.
- Reporting on the risks and impacts of AI.
Lol are these supposed to be regulations?
“Voluntary safeguards”
Point 3 is funny.
Why? Genuinely asking
I think they’re making a joke about how AI generated code is ridiculously insecure and shouldn’t be used by anyone.
That said, AIs with the ability to pen test will be a hell of a lot better at finding obscure exploits than any human, so the joke is kind of damaging.
I mean it holds a kernel of truth, but only in one specific use case.
And I can tell you from personal experience if enough people bandwagon the joke, it will kill any interest in developing actually useful AI penetration testing products.
Just like how you chucklefucks broke NFTs.
They could have been THE SOLUTION to protect content creators from platform abuse, but because everyone focused on ONE use case (links to pictures) and joked about it, all the actual useful NFT development to secure creator’s rights and force cross platform compatibility has been completely abandoned and a shitton of you will downvote me for even mentioning it.
I’m sorry but NFTs are fundamentally flawed due to blockchain usage and they provide no real value to anyone.
One, the blockchain is a benefit, it is only the modern ‘proof of work’ blockchains people hate for their energy usage and poor scalability. There are other much less intensive proof methods like Proof of Stake, and Proof of Historic Compliance. Independently confirmed ledgers are still the best form of distributed high-confidence low-trust dynamic archives. ‘Mining’ for the blockchain is separate from upkeep of the blockchain, but almost none of you naysayers even understand that because you only know what you’ve learned from online memes and jokes.
Two, while those stupid profile pics provided no value to anyone, the built-in programattically triggered contract function is of IMMENSE value to content creators. It is literally the way to guarantee youtube can never screw over small creators again and give them an effortless way to move their content to other platforms without requiring their current platform’s blessing.
And I can explain it to you in detail, but you will still just crackle “But but NFTS are a whack yo” because you haven’t actually bothered to look at the fundamental underlying technology and instead form your opinions from other people’s jokes on the internet.
And people like you outnumber the people who actually understand the value by several orders of magnitude, so your constant dismissive humor (based on rank ignorance) is actively damaging development into the ONLY open source project that can guarantee content creators rights and give them leverage against greedy platforms.
So, instead of helping your favorite content creator secure the rights for their own work, you post stupid image macros based off of 3rd hand incorrect knowledge and keep any tools to help the little guy fight for their fair compensation from being created in the future.
This is what they mean when they say ‘a little knowledge is dangerous’.
“We pinky promise we don’t need to be regulated.”
Well if they agree to do this vague stuff without any possible enforcement, I’m sure it’ll work out for the best. \s
Mmmhmmmmm
Probably means it won’t be a problem for Apples goals.
Right, because they’ve done so well about keeping their word on everything else.
