The\u00a0Biden\u00a0administration is wading into a contentious debate about whether the most powerful\u00a0artificial intelligence\u00a0systems should be\u00a0\u201copen-source\u201d or closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The White House said Wednesday it is seeking public comment on the risks and benefits of having an AI system\u2019s key components publicly available for anyone to use and modify. The inquiry is one piece of the broader\u00a0executive order\u00a0that President Joe Biden signed in October to manage the fast-evolving technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tech companies are divided on how open they make their AI models, with some emphasizing the dangers of widely accessible AI model components and others stressing that open science is important for researchers and startups. Among the most vocal promoters of an open approach have been Facebook parent Meta Platforms and IBM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Biden\u2019s order described open models with the technical name of \u201cdual-use foundation models with widely available weights\u201d and said they needed further study. Weights are numerical values that influence how an AI model performs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When those weights are publicly posted on the internet, \u201cthere can be substantial benefits to innovation, but also substantial security risks, such as the removal of safeguards within the model,\u201d Biden\u2019s order said. He gave Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo until July to talk to experts and come back with recommendations on how to manage the potential benefits and risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now the Commerce Department\u2019s National Telecommunications and Information Administration says it is also opening a 30-day comment period to field ideas that will be included in a report to the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOne piece of encouraging news is that it\u2019s clear to the experts that this is not a binary issue. There are gradients of openness,\u201d said Alan Davidson, an assistant Commerce secretary and the NTIA\u2019s administrator. Davidson told reporters Tuesday that it\u2019s possible to find solutions that promote both innovation and safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Meta plans to share with the Biden administration \u201cwhat we\u2019ve learned from building AI technologies in an open way over the last decade so that the benefits of AI can continue to be shared by everyone,\u201d according to a written statement from Nick Clegg, the company\u2019s president of global affairs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Google has largely favored a more closed approach but on Wednesday released a new group of open models, called Gemma, that derive from the same technology used to create its recently released Gemini\u00a0chatbot app and paid service. Google describes the open models as a more \u201clightweight\u201d version of its larger and more powerful Gemini, which remains closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a\u00a0technical paper\u00a0Wednesday, Google said it has prioritized safety because of the \u201cirreversible nature\u201d of releasing an open model such as Gemma and urged \u201cthe wider AI community to move beyond simplistic \u2019open vs. closed\u2019 debates, and avoid either exaggerating or minimising potential harms, as we believe a nuanced, collaborative approach to risks and benefits is essential.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Simply releasing an AI system\u2019s components to the world doesn\u2019t necessarily make it accessible or easy for outsiders to scrutinize because making use of an open model still requires \u201cresources concentrated in the hands of a few large companies,\u201d according to Cornell University researcher David Gray Widder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Widder said the motivations for companies to take a more open or closed approach are also complicated. Those lobbying for open-source may hope to profit off external contributions, while those who argue that safety concerns compel them to closely guard their AI systems may also be looking to entrench their forerunner positions, Widder said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The\u00a0Biden\u00a0administration is wading into a contentious d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3165,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3164"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3164\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3166,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3164\/revisions\/3166"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3165"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}