I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM.
Besides "AI" is largely a marketing term, most software has "AI" elements and that has been the case for a while now, this thing has "unintended consequences" written all over it.
Off the top of my head:
https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-com...
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/06/defamed-by-chatgpt-my-...
Is like trying to regulate cars to save the horse shoe industry.
And if doctors can be automated away so can software developers. I guess in the long term we are all obsolete.
Which was quite common in the early days of automobiles. There also wasn’t quite the massive bureaucratic regulatory system back then.
The big difference is these AI doctors will need to be certified by, wait for it… current doctors. Or, at the very least, the training data (haven’t RTFA so that’s the example being thrown around the comments) will need to be certified.
Judging by how the EU countries deal with labor issues I think there’s little chance robots will replace human doctors for a long, long time.
Just as Steve Jobs used to say when the media was constantly stoking fears about the power of personal computers in the 1980s—“you can just throw it out the window.”
Yet, he simultaneously took advantage of that media hysteria when signing off on what is considered the best commercial of all time- “1984 won’t be like 1984 because Apple”
Essentially what OpenAI is doing right now in Washington (ie. stoking the fear and also selling the solution).
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Not yet. Thats why there is this Act.
Using AI in law enforcement or doing a surgery could cause some harm.
LLMs like ChatGPT are in "low risk category" for which there should be no mandatory obligations.