Waikato Business News June/July 2023

Tech Talk:
Regulating AI
ChatGPT has taken the world by storm.
It’s exciting to see this next
generation technology
being used to make life
easier through very humanlike
interaction between man
and machine.
You can ask it any question
and receive an answer
that sounds like one given by a
real person.
And like humans,
ChatGPT’s answers are limited
to the data AI has learned
from, and its answers get better
and better as its data grows.
Recently there has been
much talk about the dangers of
AI technology and the potential
of a regulatory response
to address this. Most notably
in the USA, there was a congressional
hearing with Sam
Altman (OpenAI) and several
other people from organisations
in the AI space.
Here’s the focal points of what
Altman said regarding regulation
of this technology:
First, it is vital that AI companies–especially
those working
on the most powerful models–adhere
to an appropriate
set of safety requirements,
including internal and external
testing prior to release
and publication of evaluation
TECH TALK
BY LUKE MCGREGOR
Luke McGregor is a software
architect at Waikato software
specialist Company-X.
results. To ensure this, the
US government should consider
a combination of licensing
or registration requirements
for development and
release of AI models above
a crucial threshold of capabilities,
alongside incentives
for full compliance with
these requirements.
Second, AI is a complex and
rapidly evolving field. It
is essential that the safety
requirements that AI companies
must meet have a
governance regime flexible
enough to adapt to new technical
developments. The US
government should consider
facilitating multi-stakeholder
processes, incorporating
input from a broad range of
experts and organisations,
which can develop and regularly
update the appropriate
safety standards, evaluation
requirements, disclosure
practices, and external validation
mechanisms for AI
systems subject to license
or registration.
Third, we are not alone in
developing this technology.
It will be important for policymakers
to consider how
to implement licensing regulations
on a global scale and
ensure international cooperation
on AI safety, including
examining potential intergovernmental
oversight mechanisms
and standard setting.
While from the outside
asking for complex licensing,
constantly changing goalposts
and expensive testing
procedures might seem
unlikely from the CEO of an
AI company, it’s important to
understand how these regulatory
changes would benefit
OpenAI, and conversely hurt
other businesses.
OpenAI is a large player in
the AI space, made even larger
by their recent acquisition by
Microsoft. This gives them the
size to weather the prohibitive
cost of regulatory compliance.
Regulation will create barriers
to entry for new competitors
and consolidate more of the
AI problem space into exceptionally
large companies. This
would be extremely profitable
for the players that have
already established themselves
in the space, such as OpenAI,
Google and Microsoft.
Regulation is unlikely to
move at the pace of technical
development in the AI space
and if it did, it would be almost
impossible to keep up with
those changing regulations.
The technology behind
OpenAI is mostly not defensible
IP, other companies
with enough money to train
a model could compete with
OpenAI's product. There are
currently a wide variety of
open-source models that differ
from ChatGPT mostly in
the quantity of training rather
than the sophistication of the
model itself. It's likely that
regulation could cull off many
emerging competitors to OpenAI,
giving OpenAI some
breathing space to consolidate
their position.
A more altruistic regulatory
suggestion came from Christina
Montgomery of IBM,
which was transparency on
when AI is in use:
Be Transparent, Don’t
Hide Your AI – Americans
deserve to know when they
are interacting with an AI
system, so Congress should
formalise disclosure requirements
for certain uses of
AI. Consumers should know
when they are interacting
with an AI system and
whether they have recourse
to engage with a real person,
should they so desire. No
person, anywhere, should be
tricked into interacting with
an AI system. AI developers
should also be required to
disclose technical information
about the development
and performance of an AI
model, as well as the data
used to train it, to give society
better visibility into how
these models operate. At IBM,
we have adopted the use of AI
Factsheets – think of them as
similar to AI nutrition information
labels – to help clients
and partners better understand
the operation and performance
of the AI models
we create.
This seems like a far more
useful regulation, not only
would it be inexpensive to
implement and wouldn't lock
out inexperienced players, but
it would also provide users
with informed choice.
The regulation of AI technology
will focus control into
exceptionally large companies
that can stifle innovation.
AI is heavily based on
data, and the total capabilities
of any system are limited
by the quantity and quality
of training data. One of the
fundamental ways of protecting
people from the negative
impacts of AI is to control
the data that users give to
such systems.
As with many technologies,
there are implications of sharing
data. A better understanding
about the personal costs of
sharing data with AI will help
us all make more informed
decisions about who we share
data with and what we let them
do with it.
Consumers should be looking
for products that provide
us strong guarantees of privacy
and data security. Realistically
we need to understand that this
comes with an increased direct
financial cost in exchange for
our long-term digital security.
Procuta Associates
Urban + Architecture
MANU KOROKII FOR SANCTUARY MOUNTAIN MAUNGATAUTARI
Contact us 07 839 6521
www.pauaarchitects.co.nz