Deleted Comment
> There is no need to engage in conspiracy theories here
Please do not mischaracterize my post in such a light. There are no conspiracy theories here.
There are ongoing, completely public, campaigns by both the Executive and Legislative branch to regulate access to generative models. There is a reason this press release vaguely uses the term "deepfake", which is completely distinct from dragging and dropping a minor's face onto an adult's body. Whether that reason is deliberate or negligent, it still serves the greater purpose.
The debate over access to generative models with respect to CSAM has been hot for a while now, to ignore that debate and characterize my post as perpetuating conspiracy theories is just disingenuous.
2. You are right that there is a campaign to limit access to open source generative AI models, but it is not an initiative led by the government. Companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are leading the charge when it comes to emphasizing the danger of open source models and are lobbying every day to limit access. The executive and legislative branches are following suit with what industry executives tell them because they are deferred to as experts.
Industry policy teams have invented vague, ill-defined terms such as “frontier models” and equate these models as having the same power as nuclear weapons. They have a vested interest in being the sole controllers of this technology.
If you want to counter governmental efforts to limit access to such models, start by countering the FUD pushed by industry in this space.
Normally this can take a lot of time and monetary investment. On one hand, these processes encode cybersecurity best practices. On another hand, it keeps new companies out of the market.
It seems this effort is doing away with a lot of those processes. I hope the level of compliance stays the same.