foursilly (u/foursilly)

foursilly commented on Huawei releases an open weight model trained on Huawei Ascend GPUs arxiv.org/abs/2505.21411... · Posted by u/buyucu

Fluorescence · 2 months ago

IANAL but the EU legislation is very broad about what it covers e.g.

"AI systems should fall within the scope of this Regulation even when they are neither placed on the market, nor put into service, nor used in the Union."

I don't really understand the limits of it's scope e.g. the difference between making a system available vs. controlling how it's used is not clear to me. I don't think you can escape the regulation of high-risk uses by offering a "general purpose" AI with no controls on how it's used.

In terms of the open-source nature - I can see it being treated like giving away any other regulated product e.g. medication, cars, safety equipment etc. The lack of cost won't transfer the liability from the supplier to the consumer.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52...

foursilly · 2 months ago

Thanks for all that information, I agree with you that the EU legislation is very broad. In my opinion, this justifies or motivates the inclusion of the ban in the EU.

foursilly commented on Huawei releases an open weight model trained on Huawei Ascend GPUs arxiv.org/abs/2505.21411... · Posted by u/buyucu

HPsquared · 2 months ago

For security, I'd always treat ANY LLM generated code as untrusted until reviewed.

foursilly · 2 months ago

The problem is with AI agents when you give them some control.

foursilly commented on Huawei releases an open weight model trained on Huawei Ascend GPUs arxiv.org/abs/2505.21411... · Posted by u/buyucu

foursilly · 2 months ago

Since the license ban the use and installation in EU, I would ask: It is possible to formulate a license that claims: "The restriction A is motivated to protect our ass but we will not directly or indirectly enforce it against you"?, Such kind of phrasing in the license could be categorized or called "isolating clause" but I don't know if judges could consider it a circumvention of the law.

Edited several times, I should add: IANAL, but this sounds similar to meta releasing llama weights. I think that the spirit of the European law is to control concrete uses of AI and not a broad distribution of weights and architecture. So my question is: Does the EU AI act ban this distribution?, I think it provides more competition and options for Europeans.

Edited: Thinking a little more, installing open weights could allow backdoors (in the form of a way to manipulate intelligent agents via specials prompts designated to control the system), so perhaps from a national security point of view some care should be taken (but I personally hate that). So another question: Is there a way to control if open weights can create back doors (via prompt injection)?, I recall a paper in which prompt by symbols like 0?,#2! could put the system in a state in which one can read information that the LLM is asked to hide (that is a well known attack available to those that know the weights).

Another question: Is fine tuning or Lora a way to eliminate o amilliorate such prompt attacks?, is there any python library to defend against such attacks. Download - install - modify by fine tune or lora - now you are protected.