I agree that regulation at the software level seems unenforceable. It may even backfire by pushing model distribution onto a less regulated black market, or ceding the market to other countries without the regulation that are happy to let companies incorporate in their jurisdiction and distribute whatever sets of numbers they'd like.
I worry that the conversation will move to regulating hardware purchases, e.g. needing a license to purchase more than one GPU.
Personally I don't see why GPU access shouldn't be covered by the second amendment. If the proposal is to regulate the hardware then there's a clear argument that it's 2nd amendment protected: it's not possible to simultaneously argue that AI can be weaponized while also asserting it's not protected by the 2nd amendment.
Ultimately, it's not the AI we should fear, but the people controlling it. And if the best defense against AI is more AI, then it's better if everyone can have an AI in their house, because it makes the power more diffuse, rather than concentrated within the control of a few economically dominant actors.
> It may even backfire by pushing model distribution onto a less regulated black market...
Attaching a note that this isn't really a "backfire", that would be the point. There is going to be a lot of value in this space, and if only Meta/Google/friends can comply with the regulation legally then they might be able to make a lot of money. The black market will be a bit of a release valve but hat they don't want is a nimble up-and-coming company that eats their lunch.
> Under the EU’s draft AI Act, open source developers would have to adhere to guidelines for risk management, data governance, technical documentation and transparency, as well as standards of accuracy and cybersecurity.
