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

61–70 of 393 posts

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#61

Post by theshrike79 »

HPsquared wrote: post #38
bobthepanda wrote: post #14

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?

New Jersey also used AI to determine bail and it failed spectacularly: https://www.wired.com/story/algorithms-supposed-fix-bail-sys...

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#62

Post by theshrike79 »

rescripting wrote: post #7
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…

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.

I'm thinking of this more in the way of "printers got so good so now they have to add tracking dots when people try to print money or IDs".

We need the same thing for AI generated imagery, video and text.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#64

Post by concordDance »

hourago wrote: post #42
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…

> Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. 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 tha…

> "You cannot get a loan because the AI says so" is not acceptable.

To me this makes it seem like acces to loans is a right,in which case the EU should make a lender of last resort that can loan to people who would otherwise get rejected.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#65

Post by influx »

ip26 wrote: post #39
influx wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is a tension between the need to level the playing field and the need to minimize the harm potential. For example, land mines, machine gun emplacements, and chemical weapons can be effective forms of home defense. An intruder would have access to the same equipment, but at least the playing field is level, right? However, an attacker would also be able to inflict astounding mass casualties in moments with this…

I appreciate the thought you've put into this, and I tend to agree. Ideally, a weaker person would be able to use a tool to provide self defense in the most limited way possible without causing harm or damage to anyone other than the attacker.

Unfortunately the tools we have currently aren't great at that.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#66

Post by concordDance »

rescripting wrote: post #7
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…

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.

Seems more like banning cars than guns. Cars can be used pretty effectively for murder but the vast majority of use cases are not killing things.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#67

Post by concordDance »

izacus wrote: post #58
hyperhopper wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should look up Switzerland's gun laws and intentional homicide rate if you think so. That is a far more complex issue which is far deeper than such a simple correlation.

Switzerland is top of Europe in gun homicide rates with about 5x the EU average. You might not be making an example in support of an argument you think you're making ;P

But it also has a murder rate less than half of France's.

The people who use guns to kill in Switzerland instead use knives or other objects in France.

(I am admittedly cheating a bit, as Switzerland lacks the high crime subpopulations that France has)

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#68

Post by xdennis »

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.

It's not the EU's fault that you have to click cookie banners. Those banners are only required if a website plans to do malicious things with the cookies. If they're used to track who's logged in, they are not required.

They are more akin to the "Do not eat" warnings on silica packs... except on the internet everyone swallows.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#69

Post by concordDance »

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.

Cambridge Analytica was actually pretty irrelevant.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#70

Post by talideon »

hyperhopper wrote: post #40
rescripting wrote: post #7

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.

You should look up Switzerland's gun laws and intentional homicide rate if you think so. That is a far more complex issue which is far deeper than such a simple correlation.

For the curious, in Switzerland, you don't keep ammo at home, there's proper registration of weapons with proper background checks, and it's treated more as a means of national defense, so having lots of guns is going to get you odd looks from people. Guns aren't seen as something for personal defense: that's the job of the police.

In other words, Switzerland has a much healthier attitude towards gun ownership and usage.

Post reply on HN