The headline knows what will make people click, but the story also includes this: "In upper secondary education, from ages 17 to 19, students should learn to use AI appropriately so that they are prepared for further education and work, [the government] added." It all seems pretty reasonable.

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:jbvnehrrdqoulco4rf5gxg5r/post/3monmcoqhyh2l

@tedunderwood.com but shouldn't we also ask the question whether an individual user benefits more from proprietary closed models or open models (on a scale from open weights to open data to open training)? From the perspective of someone teaching students how to use models on their large corpora, for me the answer seems more than obvious, but there certainly are other perspectives.

Sure but I think I’m missing the connection to the Norway story

@tedunderwood.com let me try to summarize like this: Norway banning all GenAI is not unlike many other countries banning all social networks. In order to counter commercial abuse (unauthorized use of data, deceptive and addictive interfaces, hidden malicious behaviours, ...), governments are banning indiscriminately.

However, opening data and algorithms already starts to show that an important part of the downsides are not due to the technologies, but due to the commercial drives and unethical profiteering behind them. This is the way to make a difference. And the separation appears to be very clear.

Little consolation remains in the observation that apparently governments are inclined to enforce the bans primarily on the commercial vendors, not only because they cause most harm, but also because they are centralised grand actors that are easier to access for users and easier to deal with for governments.