I did not use the word "law". So you're arguing that EO's have no actual effect? That is blatantly false: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-dei-purge-is-hitting-nasa-hard/

I think the bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN bill has and will have a substantial effect on the proliferation of open source deepfake models. Sure, a tech savvy individual will still be able to download a model themselves and do whatever, but it significantly different from having deepfake services readily available for millions to use. Is it absolute enforcement, no, but it has a substantial effect on the world.

I'm arguing that you're intentionally trying to play semantics with phrasing and claim it doesn't matter, when it absolutely does, and everyone in here is explaining to you why. That's all.

How did we get to talking about deepfakes? They're trying to stop honest discussions about misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change.

Based on your post history, I think we're on the same side. I understand that this administration does not represent all of America. Unfortunately though, the semantics of it all don't really matter. Trump got the majority vote, and that's what matters. The effects of his policies matter. From the perspective of the rest of the world, this is what (the majority of) America has chosen. I don't like it either.

Okay. My argument is that the semantics don't matter because what matters is policy.

Friend, seriously...listen to the very clear reason being used to explain the deficiency of your argument here.

The way you phrase something absolutely changes the meaning of its point. You can't say something and then try to justify that the ends are the same, so it's cool. Literally why people use the phrase "the ends don't justify the means".

If Trump comes out and says some dumb shit, you can't just say "AMERICA WANTS THIS", because that is obviously untrue.

It would work the same way with 4 people in a car, and the driver wants hamburgers. The entire car doesn't want hamburgers, just the driver of the car. How you want to argue the outcome or explanation of that very much decides on how you intend to phrase the situation. All you know right now is that the driver wants a hamburger, so it would disingenuous to say everyone wants hamburgers.

And since you did use the word "policy", I did mention that EO's aren't laws. It's a memo. He has no control via EOnof anyone except the people in his purview. Not private companies, not researches, not law, not state governments.

The Trump administration recently published "America's AI Action Plan". One of the first policy actions from the document is to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change from the NIST's AI Risk Framework.

Lacking any sense of irony, the very next point states LLM developers should ensure their systems are "objective and free from top-down ideological bias".

Par for the course for Trump and his cronies, but the world should know what kind of AI the US wants to build.

I was giving an example of regulation that has an effect on open source AI

This is going to be catastrophic. Imagine the government using AI that does not factor that waters will rise and things will get more humid when deciding to build houses or bridges only for them to be underwater.

Fair enough. That being said, deepfake services doesn't need to be open source. Anything that presents to the masses is obviously going to be enforced but that doesn't necessarily translate back to the open source supply chain.

Very similar to crypto, the AI hype is sustained by some future promise that never comes true.

Friend, seriously...listen to the very clear reason being used to explain the deficiency of your argument here.

The way you phrase something absolutely changes the meaning of its point. You can't say something and then try to justify that the ends are the same, so it's cool. Literally why people use the phrase "the ends don't justify the means".

If Trump comes out and says some dumb shit, you can't just say "AMERICA WANTS THIS", because that is obviously untrue.

It would work the same way with 4 people in a car, and the driver wants hamburgers. The entire car doesn't want hamburgers, just the driver of the car. How you want to argue the outcome or explanation of that very much decides on how you intend to phrase the situation. All you know right now is that the driver wants a hamburger, so it would disingenuous to say everyone wants hamburgers.

I'm not sure if this has happened yet, but in theory the TAKE IT DOWN act could be used to shutdown an open source deepfake code or model repository. In that case you're right that there will be copies that spring up, but I think it is significant that popular projects could be taken down like that.

AI, crypto, just like .com, are very much very real, valuable technologies that have and will continue to stick around and be used until we destroy ourselves, or something even more advanced comes along.

What was/is a grift, is all the stupid money and people around it that don't have a damn clue where the limits of the technologies actually lie, what kinds of real problems are solved and have been sold lies stop lies without doing their due diligence.

You're saying that EO's are not policy?

I think it's nice that many Americans don't want what Trump wants. I think it's unfortunate that in this case it doesn't actually have an effect because the policy will be acted upon anyway.

Sure. Right. Like the straws, and the Trans in athletic events, and the flights from undesirable countries, and the "Gulf of America".

Get with reality here.