Unfortunately, this is often a misjudgement, because what we are currently seeing in the market – namely the integration of AI functionality into existing software – can quickly become a problem.

According to the AI Regulation, every system manufacturer that integrates Chat GPT into its software, for example, becomes a “downstream provider” (section 3, paragraph 68) and is therefore automatically subject to the obligations of the AI Regulation.

And this happens faster than you think: even a simple, purchased chatbot or a translation function via the Chat GPT API makes you a “downstream provider”. And we are currently finding such use cases almost everywhere!

Damn… so this does affect us after all!
And now?

Well, now you actually have to carry out a conformity assessment for your system and the downstream system. This must be documented and in most cases also means that you have to implement a series of measures (e.g. transparency obligation, documentation, monitoring, risk assessment, etc.).

This also includes measures that must be publicly visible (e.g. transparency), similar to the implementation of the GDPR or cookie notices. I would therefore not be surprised if we soon see the next wave of warnings coming our way.

So it’s best not to let this become a problem in the first place…

#itsachverständigesindcoolSLW Streitz Liesegang Wagenpfeil & Partner

P.S..yes, I deliberately said “𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮” here and not “𝘏𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘨” (bad “no-go” in manager-speak – I know), but what needs to be done is clear and not a big challenge. However, the issue quickly becomes a problem if nothing is done… hence “𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮”…

Der Beitrag AI Regulation – the “downstream provider” erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.

Today it’s “yes, I edited that a bit with AI”. Running…

I now find this irritating, to say the least. To be more precise – outrageous!

When I look at the LinkedIn feed, for example, I get the impression more and more that the majority of images, videos and texts (anyway) no longer reflect people, but are simply designed for reach and algorithms.

Authenticity is the most important asset that should exist on platforms like LinkedIn. What use is a network with fakes? What good are business contacts who are not “real”? What good are people who are not authentic? What good is “experience and expertise” that is only generated?

Clearly, the train that we can reliably recognize or at least identify AI-generated content has long since left the station. So we have to turn the tables and label “real” content.

I therefore advocate a “Made-By-Human” seal!

The C2PA, for example, is a good start(https://c2pa.org, recognizable by the small cr symbol), but is still far too superficial.

Incidentally, I am firmly convinced (perhaps old-fashioned and endangered) that authenticity will prevail in the end. Fakes will become boring at some point.

…. I hope.

#informatikersindcool#realcontentisimportant#authenticitycounts

P.S.: I can also create AI-generated fakes myself, I don’t need a platform for that: “You’re a successful influencer on LinkedIn. Generate a picture with a pretty person who looks positive and successful and write a text every day on the topic of xxx that generates as much reach as possible. Use the posts from A, B and C as a template” – and you have your own social network!

Der Beitrag Made by Human – we need a new seal of quality erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.

Yet another example of the fact that generative AI still cannot be trusted! What I find particularly worrying is the persistence of GPT 5 (see chat transcript).

Because the bottom line is that we can only really “rely” on generative AI if we are able to check the result. A very important insight!

I recently received a “scientific” paper – great list of sources – but only at first glance. Because generative AI had a hand in it: 80% of the sources did not exist. Invented book titles and ISBNs, invented links, all pointing either nowhere or somewhere else entirely. I had to grade the paper with a five (= failed).

Of course my students can and should use AI, because of course AI will and should be used in the company later on. But we all have to learn to deal with it properly, responsibly and critically.

However, the evaluation of AI systems or of results generated with the help of AI systems is an important task that will form the cornerstone of our future.

So: trust is good, control is better – at least with generative AI.

#informatikersindcool#it-sachverständigeauch

P.S.: Grok (from X) is now officially allowed to generate deep fakes. Perhaps this madness of fake news, fake images and fake videos will make us think a little more about what is right (or real) and wrong.

Der Beitrag What is 8.8-8.11? erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.

Even if these models are not up to date with the current Chat GPT, they can be operated internally, especially for security-critical data. You can run a “small Chat GPT” on your own server, with your own data, without any internet connection.

Open AI is pursuing the strategy that it is better for customers to get everything from a single provider rather than relying on competitor models for internal, secure purposes. The company is thus positioning itself in all areas:

– Free online version (note: data protection issues)
– Paid version (EUR 23), better data protection, better model
– Pro version (EUR 229), Ph.D. level assistant
– Open source version for self-installation

This is not meant to be an advertisement for Open AI (God forbid), but it shows the ways in which the big AI companies are going about achieving customer loyalty as well as end-to-end solutions.

However, if you really want to approach the subject seriously (and in a corporate context), you also need to provide the appropriate hardware. An A100 from NVIDIA is recommended here, which can easily cost over 35k. However, you then also have your “own little chat GPT” in the basement…

Irrespective of this, there are of course now tons of language models from various providers. The most common is probably the Llama model from Meta, which is also used in many corporate applications.

In any case, I’m curious to see how the use of these models develops and will try it out myself.

#informatikersindcool#opensourceisimportant

Der Beitrag Operate ChatGPT yourself – OpenAI publishes open source models! erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.

What is the status of your IT project? Do you lack a sound basis for making decisions on further development? Is the project in a precarious situation, does it need to be restructured or is an orderly wind-up on the cards?

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝗧-𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗸𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗸𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗵𝗲𝗶𝘁 – 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀𝘁, 𝘄𝗶𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗵𝗻𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗴𝗻𝗲𝘁.

A crucial step is to bring in an experienced expert to determine the target state and objectively assess the actual state of your project.

Streitz Liesegang Wagenpfeil & Partner is the leading German expert company for the integration of strategic, technical and commercial expertise. We combine more than 100 years of experience as full-time publicly appointed IT experts.

𝗚𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗮𝗺 𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝗿 𝗟𝗼̈𝘀𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗻, 𝗱𝗶𝗲 𝗜𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗸𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗻.

Der Beitrag SLW – the IT experts! erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.

Because when the development is finished, that’s usually when things really get going:

Solutions have to be operated (processes, teams, support are needed), they have to be updated (refactoring, updates), new functions have to be integrated (backlog, product management), all this requires continuous testing (key users, specialist department) and external framework conditions also have to be taken into account (laws, new standards, security issues) – modern software can be in operation for decades!

For years, it has been proven time and again (sometimes painfully) that the maintenance costs of individual software, even when considering a 5-year term, take up to 80% of the budget and thus exceed the pure development costs many times over.

So if we want to make software engineering sustainable, we have to take these costs into account and take specific measures during the development phase in order to keep the subsequent running costs low. Even small changes to the architecture are often enough to secure long-term investments and reduce costs.

I can only recommend that you pay attention to these aspects when planning and tendering projects!

#informatikersindcool#cost-saving sense#sustainabledevelopment

P.S.: Of course we can also help you to identify and integrate these aspects.

Der Beitrag Up to 80% of the costs of individual development end up in maintenance! erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.

1. the legal situation:
The U.S. CLOUD Act allows the American government to access all data (business + private) as long as it is located on servers of U.S. companies. It does not matter where these servers are located and by whom they are operated – as long as there is a U.S. parent company. Orders can also be issued directly by decree, for example(https://www.heise.de/news/Strafgerichtshof-Microsofts-E-Mail-Sperre-als-Weckruf-fuer-digitale-Souveraenitaet-10387368.html)

2. national and EU law:
It is now often argued that the U.S. CLOUD Act would not apply if, for example, European subsidiaries of the U.S. provider were to violate European law(https://www.m365einfuehrung.de/blog/microsoft-unter-eid-was-wirklich-hinter-dem-cloud-act-steckt).

All-clear? No, because how would that work in practice?

3. current example case:
Microsoft recently blocked the email account of a high-ranking EU politician(https://www.heise.de/news/Strafgerichtshof-Microsofts-E-Mail-Sperre-als-Weckruf-fuer-digitale-Souveraenitaet-10387368.html)– by order. Legal action then had to be taken, but the account remained blocked for the time being.

Thinking further: Your data would therefore be blocked (and therefore no longer usable for you) or – even worse – already released and you could then fight to have it protected again.

4. assurances and the “damper”:
Until now, many U.S. companies have been on a major “charm offensive”, promising digital sovereignty. Now, however, Microsoft managers have admitted under oath that they cannot guarantee protection from the CLOUD Act(https://www.itmagazine.ch/artikel/85137/Unter_Eid_Microsoft_kann_Schutz_vor_Cloud_Act_nicht_garantieren.html).

This must be a wake-up call for all European companies!

So what to do?
– Encryption? It helps, but only as long as the encryption methods are secure in the long term (keyword: post-quantum encryption).
– Relocate? Certainly an option, but a huge effort. In addition, sovereign European cloud structures are only just being established and we have all become very accustomed to the convenient Microsoft services
– but in any case: take the issue seriously and don’t ignore it!

Company data and knowledge are worth protecting. They represent your assets and your competitive advantage. We no longer just have to deal with the threat of hackers, but also with international law and derive suitable strategies from it.

#informatikersindcool#law is becoming more and more important#itandrightmostright

P.S. Cloud here does not stand for “the cloud” but for “Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act”

Der Beitrag The U.S. CLOUD Act – starting to be a real problem… erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.

Now, however, there are a whole range of new and not quite so catchy “professions” and I am increasingly asking myself whether the “presumption of competence” is really justified here.

Just take a look at LinkedIn and see how many AI experts or brand coaches there are here. It all looks great, sounds important and like experience and expertise. But is that really the case?

How can we categorize and review all these newly emerging competencies?

Certificates?
No. Anyone can issue certificates and many simply do. 1 hour webinar attended > AI certified.

References:
Better. But who can you trust as a “reference” here? We could reference each other, so to speak, and have both “done” 50 successful projects

Personal recommendations:
Very good. When an acquaintance says to me, “he/she is competent”, then this personal assessment is worth the most to me.

Genuine, personal networks based on trust are more important today than ever before. Competence networks with real experts from different fields are a modern form of professional designation and qualification. And in this context, an incredibly important element of “networking”.

I like working with “real” people who have “real” skills and can produce “real” and resilient results!

#informatikersindcool#real people too#foambeatersarenot

Der Beitrag If the presumption of competence is not justified… erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.

According to current estimates by Europol, current procedures will remain secure for around 10-15 years(https://www.heise.de/news/Europol-Finanzinstitute-sollten-rasch-auf-quantensichere-Kryptografie-umsatteln-10274967.html)– provided that the development of quantum computers and procedures continues at the current rate.

So everything is easy?

By no means! We are already seeing an increase in the “steal now – decrypt later” scenario, in which attackers are already stealing your (company) data today in order to be able to decrypt it later using fast processes.

Just imagine if I were to obtain an encrypted copy of your Bitcoin wallet today or the encrypted blueprints of your latest product. Even if I can’t decrypt it for another five years, that would be a problem for you and a successful break-in or theft for me. If there are technological breakthroughs sooner, all the better – at least for me.

According to the agenda(https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/coordinated-implementation-roadmap-transition-post-quantum-cryptography) of the EU Cooperation Group on Network and Information Security (NIS), all member states should start switching to post-quantum cryptography (PQK) by the end of 2026. The closer quantum computers come, the greater the danger of “steal now – decrypt later”.

Cybersecurity is an ongoing issue and has become at least one more challenge thanks to new technologies. Sitting back and waiting is dangerous.

#informatikersindcool#endlichmalnixzuki#cybersecurityisalsocool

P.S.: You may notice that I now cite sources in my posts. That’s because I’m starting to get suspicious myself (see my post https://www.linkedin.com/posts/stefan-wagenpfeil_informatikersindcool-menschenauch-informatikersindauchmenschen-activity-7334843650427805696-vJIU?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAPRfmgBS2X4xsfduNSJJ9EDTbaovIvnGvk) and want to give you an easy way to check.
There’s unfortunately more and more scaremongering and bullshit or fake news on LinkedIn…. so feel free to make up your own mind!

Der Beitrag Steal now – decrypt later! How secure is encryption? erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.

And everyone goes crazy…. ?!

I think you have to look at it with a little distance and somewhat unemotionally…:

Even if AI were to remain at its current level, such systems would be “smarter” than humans in certain areas. As far as knowledge reproduction, memorization and navigating the digital jungle are concerned – AI can already do that better than us.

On the other hand, AI will never be able to do some things as well as we can. Feelings and emotions, taste, pain, touch – these are dimensions that will remain the preserve of humans for some time to come (I’m just imagining an AI that falls out of a tree, hits its knee and feels the pain. Um…).

All of this leads to a different background of experience in humans, to different learning effects and to different / more intensive knowledge connections than digital systems can achieve, which ultimately only “live” in one dimension (digital knowledge). This inevitably results in different forms of intelligence.

In the digital world, AI is already superior to humans. In other areas, AI does not yet exist at all. And then there’s the fact that sometimes even real people can be pretty stupid….

Intelligence is not an easily measurable quantity. And perhaps the human brain is just a dull parrot that links and reproduces information (from many different areas). Or perhaps we humans simply overestimate ourselves.

For example, I would be really interested to know how many people would be able to solve the “Towers of Hanoi” puzzle mentioned in the Apple paper. Here on LinkedIn certainly at least 80%. But when I walk through the city and randomly ask passers-by, probably significantly fewer – because intelligence is not only defined by solving puzzles.

Apple is not going to destroy the AI movement with its paper (that was not its claim) and Sam Altman is not going to make humans obsolete with his blog entry (that was not his claim either). So I don’t really understand the excitement that these two articles are causing.

But maybe I’m just not intelligent enough for that and should ask the AI for support….

#informatikersindcool#onceagain#stay on the carpet

Der Beitrag Apple Paper and Sam Altman’s blog – and everyone goes crazy erschien zuerst auf Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wagenpfeil.