Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 393 posts

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#21

Post by Aeolos »

paulcole wrote: post #18
juancn wrote: post #5

Why the need to bring it under control? Control from what? It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. The law shouldn't focus on the AI, for example: >The regulation, proposed by the Commission in 2021, was designed to ban some AI applications like social scoring Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of throu…

[flagged]

As a consumer, the USB-C mandate is amazing and I wish it had been given as soon as USB-C became available.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#22

Post by paulcole »

Aeolos wrote: post #21
paulcole wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

As a consumer, the USB-C mandate is amazing and I wish it had been given as soon as USB-C became available.

Neat! I guess you’ll be advocating for whatever the next advancement in USB ports is becoming mandated as soon as it’s available, too?

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#23

Post by M4v3R »

ip26 wrote: post #17
aftbit wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, which is also a valid argument. Tools have no alignment. The people using them do. Thus, one should regulate the people, not the tools.

How about harmful tools with no practical uses to the general public? Mortars, tanks, ketamine, ICBM GPS units… You’re taking an absolutist position, so I’d like to explore it.

Curious that you’ve put ketamine, a well known anesthetic used primary by the vets but recently also used in depression treatment [1], in that list of “harmful tools with no practical uses”.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine-assisted_psychotherap...

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#24

Post by luckylion »

killerpopiller wrote: post #6
user249 wrote: post #4

Good. Thanks to the EU I have to click "cookie question" every where I go. Thanks guys for wasting the limited time I have in life.

micro targeting is a threat to our democracy (cambridge analytica, Facebooks desinformation problem,..). Besides, why should third parties allowed to trade my digital persona, while basically knowing more about my interests and flaws than I am? I hate cookie banner as well but this excessive tracking must be stopped somehow.

Why couldn't that have happened in the browser though? We have plenty of mechanisms to block and/or delete cookies.

Essentially, now we're at a state where consent banners exist, slowing down all sites, and there are like four states: a) they look compliant, but are ignored by the website provider (the EU itself takes this approach), b) they are flat out ignored (a lot of companies still take this approach) c) they aren't compliant (tiny "no" link, huge "yes, take my firstborn" link) d) they're compliant and are paywalls (buy subscription or accept everything under the sun).

d) is what we're probably going to end up with, so you either pay or you accept tracking. More and more solutions offer that as an option so adoption will grow. Most people accept tracking (stats that I've seen say that those paying are like 1/10,000th), so what have we won exactly by doing this dance?

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#25

Post by Aeolos »

user249 wrote: post #9
killerpopiller wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

micro targeting is a threat to our democracy (cambridge analytica, Facebooks desinformation problem,..). Besides, why should third parties allowed to trade my digital persona, while basically knowing more about my interests and flaws than I am? I hate cookie banner as well but this excessive tracking must be stopped somehow.

I support your concern that I don't share, so why make me suffer? I tried the "I don't care about cookies" extension but it didn't work for me.

The regulation says nothing about a cookie banner. Instead, it says companies cannot track you unless you give consent.

If you don't like cookie banners, which are indeed really annoying, you should be turning your ire to the companies that wish to track you. They are fully-functional solutions that allow anonymous tracking without installing cookies on your computer - no banner needed then.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#26

Post by Aeolos »

paulcole wrote: post #22
Aeolos wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer, the USB-C mandate is amazing and I wish it had been given as soon as USB-C became available.

Neat! I guess you’ll be advocating for whatever the next advancement in USB ports is becoming mandated as soon as it’s available, too?

Anything that reduces e-waste, yes.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#27

Post by ketzu »

juancn wrote: post #5

Why the need to bring it under control? Control from what? It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. The law shouldn't focus on the AI, for example: >The regulation, proposed by the Commission in 2021, was designed to ban some AI applications like social scoring Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of throu…

> Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of through AI?

Yes, as long as that is based on clear reasons why the decision was reached. (Unless this was a quip meant to mean "matrix muls with pen and paper are not AI!", personally I'd say they are, the same way bubble sort is bubble sort on paper and in code.)

[1] on the topic "why":

> For example, it is often not possible to find out why an AI system has made a decision or prediction and taken a particular action.

As far as I know, there are some rules around that (especially social scoring), but the regulation was/is targeted to lay out rules minimizing the applications in similar risky areas that do not have those same rules yet.

[1] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory...

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#28

Post by camdenlock »

juancn wrote: post #5

Why the need to bring it under control? Control from what? It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. The law shouldn't focus on the AI, for example: >The regulation, proposed by the Commission in 2021, was designed to ban some AI applications like social scoring Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of throu…

> Why the need to bring it under control?

So that EU bureaucrats can feel a sense of purpose in their lives.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#29

Post by ip26 »

M4v3R wrote: post #23
ip26 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about harmful tools with no practical uses to the general public? Mortars, tanks, ketamine, ICBM GPS units… You’re taking an absolutist position, so I’d like to explore it.

Curious that you’ve put ketamine, a well known anesthetic used primary by the vets but recently also used in depression treatment [1], in that list of “harmful tools with no practical uses”. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine-assisted_psychotherap...

Vets and psychotherapists are not “the general public”.

Every item I listed has a clear and valuable purpose, but only in specific contexts.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#30

Post by influx »

ip26 wrote: post #17
aftbit wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, which is also a valid argument. Tools have no alignment. The people using them do. Thus, one should regulate the people, not the tools.

How about harmful tools with no practical uses to the general public? Mortars, tanks, ketamine, ICBM GPS units… You’re taking an absolutist position, so I’d like to explore it.

If you're open for exploration, what are your thoughts on organisms rights to self defense? What level of self defense should they be able to have if another organism is trying to end their life?
Post reply on HN