41–50 of 393 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this the same argument as "ban murder, not guns"? Murder is illegal, yes, but fatalities are lower in places with gun control than places without.
The upside potential of guns is not even remotely comparable with AI...
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…
Automated human classification without recourse nor transparency is what the EU is against. "You cannot get a loan because the AI says so" is not acceptable.
> Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of through AI?
Yes. As a judge can check what information was used and what algorithm applied to get to a conclusion. And it may declare that use of data or algorithm illegal.
> They fear the amplification factor of such tech, but the amplification factor works for the good and for the bad
Maybe just go slower. Something like an Hippocratic oath can be a good principle to follow for high impact technologies. To do some good may not justify the harm.
Are there any internationally relevant internet companies in Europe? Spotify comes to mind. Then .. I can't think of anything. No search engine. No browser. No operating system. No social network. No ecommerce company. No cloud computing platform. No financial services company. No transportation company. No travel company. No nothing. Except for a $20B music aggregator, there is not a single sector of the web where E…
Unfortunately, Europe strongly embraces socialism [1] and is hostile to entrepreneurs. According to a study [2]:
"Western Europe is shown to underperform in all four measures of high-impact Schumpeterian entrepreneurship relative to the U.S. Once we account for Europe’s strong performance in technological innovation, an “entrepreneurship deficit” relative to East Asia also becomes apparent. This underperformance is missed by most standard measures. Finally, we also find that China performs surprisingly well in Schumpeterian entrepreneurship, especially compared to Eastern Europe."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vets and psychotherapists are not “the general public”. Every item I listed has a clear and valuable purpose, but only in specific contexts.
Yeah I would consider pet owners and people with depression (so groups of people that benefit from this specific tool) a part of general public, both are fairly large groups.
Are there any internationally relevant internet companies in Europe? Spotify comes to mind. Then .. I can't think of anything. No search engine. No browser. No operating system. No social network. No ecommerce company. No cloud computing platform. No financial services company. No transportation company. No travel company. No nothing. Except for a $20B music aggregator, there is not a single sector of the web where E…
Ornganisations with more focus on making money than social responsibility are not a net positive.
So i struggle to see any innovation from outside of europe to balance your claim.
Maybe windows, but linux was started in europe..
Shrug.
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.
Yeah, I feel like I'm defending democracy and freedom whenever I click on the "Accept All" button. Not all heroes wear capes!
Are there any internationally relevant internet companies in Europe? Spotify comes to mind. Then .. I can't think of anything. No search engine. No browser. No operating system. No social network. No ecommerce company. No cloud computing platform. No financial services company. No transportation company. No travel company. No nothing. Except for a $20B music aggregator, there is not a single sector of the web where E…
Strong AI is a weapon. It will be regulated just like firearms/munitions - see the current EU draft which consists of some hundred pages of forbidding this or that under the guise of ethics and whatnot, after which comes a paragraph of "the above doesn't apply to law enforcement or military entities". We're still in the early stages of this technology. ChatGPT will be to strong AI like a firecracker is to a BLU-109.
Just look at what is happening in Ukraine with cheap drones precision dropping charges into open tank hatches and foxholes, and those are only basic off the shelf human steered drones! What happens when they are given a brain and advanced robotic abilities?
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…
> It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. This seems backwards and contrary to lessons learned in the past. Once the thing exists, prohibition is infeasible and expensive. Supply will find a way to reaech demand regardless of your multi-billion dollar efforts to prevent that. It's better to stop $NEFARIOUS_THING being invented i…
In fact most technology does both negative and positive things. It’s not obvious banning it completely will be a net positive. Especially with AI. There’s a lot of potentially great uses. Like detecting cancer on CT scans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Control may be the wrong thing here. Every technology, at some point, will inevitably bring questions of legal liability and culpability, and AI has a large tendency to do so because of how applicable it is. It’s not the worst idea to try and get ahead of the problem by defining a legal framework. Examples of how a free-for-all has resulted in legal questions; * police and the judiciary in the US have come under fire…
I don't get it. For the first example, the system is only a tool used and the responsibility is still with whoever does the sentencing/traffic stops etc. In the second case, how is this different from e.g. Kelley Blue Book for car prices?
---
The problem with the first case is that we do not have existing case law about AIs, and we also have no laws on the books that clarify what to do in AI cases, so this is making the lawsuits and investigations very messy and time-consuming, since judges have to waffle about to figure out what the correct, legal thing to do is.
Pretty much all Western law systems judge the severity of action using intent, or mens rea; it doesn't absolve you of crime if you didn't mean to do it, but your penalties will generally be lesser. The people using the algorithm can wash their hands of intent by saying "we signed a contract with a third party for their algorithm and didn't reasonably expect biased outcomes." Then you make the third party a defendant, and then the third party claims "trade secrets" because we have no laws about what is and isn't protected trade secrets with AI, etc. and that becomes a whole legal case on its own that takes even more time for the legal system.
---
The difference in the second case is that the corporate landlords in question are automatically pegging their rates to the algorithm's recommendation and not giving property managers discretion. The algorithm's customers combined also control over half of supply of apartments in the Seattle area.
---
But the point of legal clarity, is to reduce the amount of questions, which both 1) heads off potential issues and 2) makes the issues that come into the legal system faster and clearer to process. It also potentially actually makes things easier for companies who make AIs too, since legal defense spending isn't exactly cheap.