Olivier Braet retweeted
Holy shit! They changed the rules for Elon again...
They waved the profitability rule & are adding SpaceX to indices only 5 days after IPO... normally it's 90
This forces 401k retirement & passive funds to buy SpaceX at elevated IPO pricing, holding the bags the entire way down
Olivier Braet retweeted
Great post by @adam_tooze on US climate politics today. Couldn't agree more with this: "The question of data center power demand has attracted an inordinate amount of comment out of proportion to its actual scale."
Olivier Braet retweeted
Timelapse flying by Hurricane Milton about 2 hours ago.
1/6400 sec exposure, 14mm, ISO 500, 0.5 sec interval, 30fps
Olivier Braet retweeted
🚨 [AI LIABILITY] AI regulation doesn't end with the AI Act, and everyone should be aware of Philipp Hacker's MUST-READ "Proposal for a directive on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to AI." Some of its key recommendations are:
1️⃣ "Identity of concepts and definitions. The AILD includes several key concepts from the AI Act. For reasons of coherence and legal clarity, the AILD should adopt the concepts used in the AI Act (e.g. the definition of AI itself).
2️⃣ From high-risk to high-impact AI systems. The AILD should, however, add certain categories that trigger the evidence disclosure obligations and the rebuttable presumptions concerning fault and causality. This primarily concerns: general-purpose AI systems (e.g. ChatGPT); Old Legislative Framework systems (e.g. autonomous vehicles; transportation-related AI applications more generally; other AI systems falling under Annex I Section B AI Act 3 ); and insurance applications beyond health and life insurance. The study suggests an umbrella term ('high-impact AI systems') to cover high-risk AI systems and those additional systems.
3️⃣ Rebuttal of presumption. The AILD framework should allow for the causality presumption to be rebutted in cases where initial violations of the AI Act are rectified atlater stages.
4️⃣ Article 14 and 26 AI Act violations. Articles 14 and 26 AI Act require human oversight mechanisms in AI systems. The direct causation between a lack of ex-post oversight and harmful outputs is not always clear. It is suggested to establish a direct presumption of causality betweenAI outputs and damages for non-compliance with monitoring obligations.
5️⃣ Handling of prohibited AI systems. For AI systems banned under Article 5 AI Act, the recommendation is to assume strict liability for any damages they cause.
6️⃣ Impact of general-purpose AI systems. The current AILD framework does not adequately cover general-purpose AI systems, which can lead to significant harm particularly in the realms of non-discrimination (e.g. unbalanced content) and personality rights (e.g. hate speech and fake news). It is recommended that generative AI systems, such asChatGPT, be classified under the new 'high-impact' category. This would bring them under the ambit of the AILD, ensure evidence disclosure, and establish presumptions of causality for safety violations. This, in turn, aids injured parties in legal claims.
7️⃣ Extension of the AILD beyond the PLD. Given the PLD's limitations (e.g. concerning nonprofessional users and types of damage not covered by the PLD), there is a strong case for extending the AILD, to ensure a comprehensive liability framework."
and more.
➡️ Read the full proposal below.
🏛️ STAY UP TO DATE. AI governance & law are moving fast: to keep up with the latest developments, join 36,000+ people who subscribe to my weekly newsletter (link below).
Olivier Braet retweeted
EU: "We need 850 billion € a year to compete with the US and China"
Member States: "Totally, here's 850 million. We expect results by next national elections"
EU: ...
Olivier Braet retweeted
the self-driving battle is more interesting than LLMs rn and for some reason people aren’t talking about it
cars that depend on LIDAR and hard-coded heuristics (waymo, zoox) can drive themselves
cars that rely on neural networks only (tesla) can’t
interesting, isn’t it 🧐
Olivier Braet retweeted
I recently got a new air conditioner and I cannot tell you how long the guy tried to sell me a smart thermostat.
"I literally want the dumbest thermostat you have. Mechanical if they still make them."
"But.."
"No."
Long rundown of what hampered Alexa.
How Alexa dropped the ball on being the top conversational system on the planet
—
A few weeks ago OpenAI released GPT-4o ushering in a new standard for multimodal, conversational experiences with sophisticated reasoning capabilities.
Several days later, my good friends at PolyAI announced their Series C fundraising round after tremendous growth in the usage of their enterprise voice assistant.
Amid this news, a former Alexa colleague messaged me: You’d think voice assistants would have been our forte at Alexa.
For context, I joined Alexa AI as a research scientist in early 2019. By this time, the Alexa consumer device had existed for 5 years and was already in 100M+ homes throughout the world.
In 2019, Alexa was experiencing a period of hypergrowth. Dozens of new teams sprouted every quarter, huge financial resources were invested, and senior leadership made it clear that Alexa was going to be one of Amazon’s big bets moving forward.
My team was born amidst all this with a simple charter: bring the latest and greatest in AI research into the Alexa product and ecosystem. I’ve often described our group (later dubbed the Conversational Modeling team) as Google Brain meets Alexa AI-SWAT team.
Over the course of the 2.5 years I was there, we grew from 2 to ~20 and tackled every part of the conversational systems stack.
We built the first LLMs for the organization (though back then we didn’t call them LLMs), we built knowledge grounded response generators (though we didn’t call it RAG), and we pioneered prototypes for what it would mean to make Alexa a multimodal agent in your home.
We had all the resources, talent, and momentum to become the unequivocal market leader in conversational AI. But most of that tech never saw the light of day and never received any noteworthy press.
Why?
The reality is Alexa AI was riddled with technical and bureaucratic problems.
Bad Technical Process
–
Alexa put a huge emphasis on protecting customer data with guardrails in place to prevent leakage and access. Definitely a crucial practice, but one consequence was that the internal infrastructure for developers was agonizingly painful to work with.
It would take weeks to get access to any internal data for analysis or experiments. Data was poorly annotated. Documentation was either nonexistent or stale.
Experiments had to be run in resource-limited compute environments. Imagine trying to train a transformer model when all you can get a hold of is CPUs. Unacceptable for a company sitting on one of the largest collections of accelerated hardware in the world.
I remember on one occasion our team did an analysis demonstrating that the annotation scheme for some subset of utterance data was completely wrong, leading to incorrect data labels.
That meant for months our internal annotation team had been mislabeling thousands of data points every single day. When we attempted to get the team to change their annotation taxonomy, we discovered it would require a herculean effort to get even the smallest thing modified.
We had to get the team’s PM onboard, then their manager’s buy-in, then submit a preliminary change request, then get that approved (a multi-month-long process end-to-end).
And most importantly, there was no immediate story for the team’s PM to make a promotion case through fixing this issue other than “it’s scientifically the right thing to do and could lead to better models for some other team.” No incentive meant no action taken.
Since that wasn’t our responsibility and the lift from our side wasn’t worth the effort, we closed that chapter and moved on.
For all I know, they could still be mislabeling those utterances to this day.
Fragmented Org Structures
—
Alexa’s org structure was decentralized by design meaning there were multiple small teams working on sometimes identical problems across geographic locales.
This introduced an almost Darwinian flavor to org dynamics where teams scrambled to get their work done to avoid getting reorged and subsumed into a competing team.
The consequence was an organization plagued by antagonistic mid-managers that had little interest in collaborating for the greater good of Alexa and only wanted to preserve their own fiefdoms.
My group by design was intended to span projects, whereby we found teams that aligned with our research/product interests and urged them to collaborate on ambitious efforts. The resistance and lack of action we encountered was soul-crushing.
I remember on one occasion we were coordinating a project to scale out the large transformers model training I had been leading. This was an ambitious effort which, if done correctly, could have been the genesis of an Amazon ChatGPT (well before ChatGPT was released).
Our Alexa team met with an internal cloud team which independently was initiating similar undertakings. While the goal was to find a way to collaborate on this training infrastructure, over the course of several weeks there were many half-baked promises made which never came to fruition.
At the end of it, our team did our own thing and the sister team did their own thing. Duplicated efforts due to no shared common ground. With no data, infrastructure, or lesson sharing, this inevitably hurt the quality of produced models.
As another example, the Alexa skills ecosystem was Alexa’s attempt to apply Amazonian decentralization to the dialogue problem. Have individual teams own individual skills.
But dialogue is not conducive to that degree of separation of concerns. How can you seamlessly hand off conversational context between skills? This means endowing the system with multi-turn memory (a long-standing dream of dialogue research).
The internal design of the skills ecosystem made achieving this infeasible because each skill acted like its own independent bot. It was conversational AI by an opinionated bot committee each with its own agenda.
Product-Science Misalignment
—
Alexa was viciously customer-focused which I believe is admirable and a principle every company should practice. Within Alexa, this meant that every engineering and science effort had to be aligned to some downstream product.
That did introduce tension for our team because we were supposed to be taking experimental bets for the platform’s future. These bets couldn’t be baked into product without hacks or shortcuts in the typical quarter as was the expectation.
So we had to constantly justify our existence to senior leadership and massage our projects with metrics that could be seen as more customer-facing.
For example, in one of our projects to build an open-domain chat system, the success metric (i.e. a single integer value representing overall conversational quality) imposed by senior leadership had no scientific grounding and was borderline impossible to achieve.
This introduced product/science conflict in every weekly meeting to track the project’s progress leading to manager churn every few months and an eventual sunsetting of the effort.
—
As we look forward, in the battle for the future of the conversational AI market, I still believe it’s anyone’s game.
Today Alexa has sold 500M+ devices, which is a mind-boggling user data moat. But that alone is not enough.
Here’s how I would organize a dialogue systems effort from the ground-up:
Invest in robust developer infrastructure especially around access to compute, data quality assurance, and streamlined data collection processes. Data and compute are the lifeblood of modern ML systems so proactively setting up this foundation is imperative.
Make LLMs the fundamental building block of the dialogue flows. In retrospect, the Alexa skills ecosystem was a premature initiative for the abilities of conversational systems at the time. I liken it to when Leap Motion created and released a developer SDK before the underlying hardware device was stable.
But with the power of modern LLMs, I’m optimistic about redesigning a developer conversational toolkit with LLMs as their primitives.
Ensure product timelines don’t dictate science research time frames. Because things are moving so fast in the AI world, it’s hard not to feel the pressure of shipping quickly. But there are still so many unsolved problems that will take time to solve.
Of course you should conduct research aggressively, but don’t have delivery cycles measured in quarters, as this will produce inferior systems to meet deadlines.
—
If you’re thinking about the future of multimodal conversational systems and interfaces, I would love to hear from you. We’ve got work to do!
15 July 1964 | Costa/ENEL ruling. A groundbreaking case that established the principle of primacy of EU law over the laws of EU countries.
Or how an unpaid electricity bill led to one of the key principles of EU law.
#OnThisDay #EUHistory
Olivier Braet retweeted
🚨 [AI REGULATION] The definition and societal impacts of open foundation models should be at the core of AI policy & regulation discussions. Why? In many jurisdictions, there are more lenient rules for these AI models. Read this:
➡️ The EU AI Act, for example, in its Article 53, which covers General-Purpose AI Models, establishes that:
"2. The obligations set out in paragraph 1, points (a) and (b), shall not apply to providers of AI models that are released under a free and open-source licence that allows for the access, usage, modification, and distribution of the model, and whose parameters, including the weights, the information on the model architecture, and the information on model usage, are made publicly available. This exception shall not apply to general-purpose AI models with systemic risks."
➡️ In the US, the @FTC has recently published an article covering open-weights foundation models, highlighting their potential benefits (including enabling greater innovation, driving competition, improving consumer choice, and reducing costs) and possible risks to consumers when compared to centralized closed models (link to the article below).
➡️ Given the high stakes and the fact that regulatory authorities will look at these AI models differently, both their definition and their societal impacts - especially in comparison to closed ones - must be closely scrutinized.
➡️ In this context, the paper "On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models" by @sayashk, @RishiBommasani, @kevin_klyman, @ShayneRedford, @ashwinforga, @pcihon, @aspenkhopkins, @KevinBankston, @BlancheMinerva, @mbogen, @ruchowdh, Alex Engler, @PeterHndrsn, @YJernite, @sethlazar, @smaffulli, @alondra, @jpineau1, @aviskowron, @dawnsongtweets, @victorstorchan, @dzhang105, Daniel E. Ho, @percyliang & @random_walker is a must-read for everyone in AI, especially those focused on regulation and policymaking (link below). Quotes:
➡️ The paper discusses the distinctive properties of open foundation models, their benefits, and a risk assessment framework to evaluate risks and threats. On the recommendations and calls to action, they state:
"Researchers investigating AI risks: Our preliminary analysis of the misuse risk of open foundation models reveals significant uncertainty for several misuse vectors due to incomplete or unsatisfactory evidence. In turn, researchers investigating AI risks should conduct new research to clarify the marginal risks for misuse of open foundation models. In particular, in light of our observations regarding past work, greater attention should be placed on articulating the status quo, constructing realistic threat models (or arguments for why speculative threat models yield generalizable evidence), and considering the full supply chain for misuse."
➡️ And to policymakers:
"(....) Policies that place obligations on foundation model developers to be responsible for downstream use are intrinsically challenging, if not impossible, for open developers to meet. If recent proposals for liability (Blumenthal & Hawley, 2023b) and watermarking (Executive Office of the President, 2023; Chinese National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee, 2023; G7 Hiroshima Summit, 2023) are interpreted strictly to apply to foundation model developers, independent of how the model is adapted or used downstream, they would be difficult for open developers to comply with (Bommasani et al., 2023a), since these developers have little ability to monitor, moderate, or prohibit downstream usage."
➡️ AI liability is still an open topic in many jurisdictions worldwide. At this point, it is extremely important that policymakers and regulators invest time and effort in understanding the different risk profiles, the best way to regulate them, and who is responsible for the harm after it happens.
➡️ Find all relevant links below.
➡️ To stay up to date with the latest developments in AI policy & regulation, join 28,500 people who subscribe to my weekly newsletter (link below).
The FTC weighs in on the debate of openness in AI models.
Open-weights models may be new, but the history of traditional open-source software can show us how open models can enable innovation, drive competition, and reduce costs.
New blog: bit.ly/4bEFb4U #AI /1
Olivier Braet retweeted
The Creative Process in 43 Hayao Miyazaki Screengrabs
(Context: sbtl.info/hayao)
Here come the AI governance jobs.
Replying to @LuizaJarovsky
1. Zurich Australia (Australia) - AI Governance Lead
lnkd.in/eAEpfEAP
2. Siemens Energy (Portugal) - AI Governance Consultant
lnkd.in/e9sGyETj
3. Barclays Bank US (US) - AI Governance and Oversight
lnkd.in/esUuZaNF
4. Visa (US) - Lead System Architect, AI Governance
lnkd.in/eV6QEvTw
5. Zurich Insurance (Spain) - AI Governance Expert
lnkd.in/eNXT2dH2
6. AXA UK (UK) - AI Governance Lead
lnkd.in/e2g2XaCy
7. AstraZeneca (Sweden) - Head of Data & AI Governance and Policy, R&D
lnkd.in/eRFJ_jK6
8. E.ON Digital Technology - Data & AI Governance, Policies and Standards Expert
lnkd.in/expDQ7iC
9. TRUSTEQ GmbH (Germany) AI-Governance Associate Consultant
lnkd.in/eYFV7i-k
10. Deloitte (Canada) - Consultant, AI Governance, Risk and Data
lnkd.in/eTuCtftw
-
➡ Additional links:
➵ If you are transitioning to AI governance or focusing on upskilling to land your dream job in AI, check out the AI, Tech & Privacy Academy's 4-week Bootcamps (upcoming cohorts in July). More than 800 people have joined our AI programs - don't miss them: aitechprivacy.com
➵ For additional AI governance and privacy job opportunities, join thousands of people who receive our weekly JOB ALERTS: aitechprivacy.com/ai-jobs
➵ To stay up to date with the latest developments in AI policy & regulation and receive my insights, join 27,000+ people who subscribe to my weekly newsletter: luizasnewsletter.com
WEF's Top 10 Emerging Technologies, with a.o. AI for science, privacy through synthetic data, reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, and integrated sensing through 6G networks :: weforum.org/press/2024/06/wo…
Not all ‘open source’ AI models are actually open: here’s a ranking nature.com/articles/d41586-0…
Olivier Braet retweeted
🚨NEW🚨: AI Is Wreaking Havoc on Global Power Systems
We analyzed data on 1000s of data centers and found that AI data centers are coming online so fast that electricity demand is straining global power grids and threatening clean energy goals
🎁tinyurl.com/572p2mk2






























