ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI • Hacker News Board

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#171

Post by rng_civ » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:09 AM UTC

falsaberN1 wrote: post #53

People acts like if it was a tiny person inside a computer. I know humans have a tendency to humanize inanimate objects but this is was always ridiculous, the article mentions "the AI wants to be regulated" but it doesn't WANT anything. It's not going to reprogram itself to carry out threats, it's just regurgitating the usual response of many humans being challenged on an assertion and becoming hostile. WE taught it…

> The west fears machines too much for some reason.

I unironically attribute it to the Matrix. The movies have somehow weasled its way into the public discourse as either some sort of prophecy or actual reality (the 'pill' speak, living in a virtual reality, etc.).

I won't comment on the validity of any position, but I think it's pretty cool that a piece of art has proliferated in such a way. I do wonder how impactful it has been in comparison to stuff like the Bible, Tolkien, etc.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#172

Post by bigDinosaur » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:10 AM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #167

gopher_space wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haven't loan decisions always been black box? Not to the people making those decisions. That's brand new.

People haven’t been making loan decisions for decades in the EU as well. You put numbers into a computer and what comes out is either an approval with a rate or a decline. No bank EU or not has people manually approving loans.

'Black box' doesn't mean 'numbers in a computer', it means 'nobody can explain to me precisely why I was rejected'. A score calculated from an obvious formula is fine (regulations permitting) since you (or a regulator or court or the institution) can establish precisely why you were rejected. A black box system is one in which this cannot be established by any person.

This is obviously bad for both legal and moral reasons. Legally you may be (unintentionally) violating anti-discrimination laws. Morally you may be setting up a system that arbitrarily denies people who are otherwise deserving with little to no recourse.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#173

Post by worrycue » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:12 AM UTC

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.

Personally I’m uncomfortable that a centralised government is “choosing the winner” rather than having the standards duke it out on the open market.

In this case, USB-C is pretty much expected to win and be the dominant standard - even Apple was already moving towards it way before the mandate - but it’s the principle of it.

In what other area will the EU elect itself to “choose the winner” next? The whole thing sets a bad precedence and opens up the possibility of corruption - which the EU isn’t immune to.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#174

Post by bigDinosaur » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:13 AM UTC

briHass wrote: post #96

talideon wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBF, much of that is down to suicides, as Switzerland has a much higher rate of suicide by gun than other countries. The general gun homicide rate once they're omitted isn't quite so crazy.

Same in the US, of course. Suicide by gun counted as 'gun violence' is the classic disingenuous deception. Remove those and gang violence (primarily against rival gangs), and the numbers don't look that scary, which is the issue for those with an agenda.

From an international perspective, most reporting about gun control being a big issue in the US appears to come from mass shootings, not the misc. causes such as gang activity or suicides.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#175

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:13 AM UTC

akomtu wrote: post #114

talideon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

Switzerland has a more traditional, not healthier, relationship between the people and the state: the people are subjects who are given tiny freedoms, but are kept on tight leash, because the state has a deep distrust of its people. The abberation with guns is just insecurity of the state: it's small and needs its people to act as part-time military in reserve. If it had a bigger military, the fake gun rights would d…

> people are subjects who are given tiny freedoms, but are kept on tight leash,

This take comes across as insulting and I am not even from there.

Do you, by any chance, hail from the land of the free, where government can seize your property without even accusing you of a crime? (Civil forfeuiture)

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#176

Post by bigDinosaur » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:14 AM UTC

neural_thing wrote: post #160

ip26 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And ketamine is employed by trained professionals appropriately in veterinary hospitals and psychotherapy contexts. The public does not need unregulated access to ketamine for this to happen.

Computers are employed by trained professionals appropriately in military contexts. The public does not need access to computers for this to happen.

There's no task I cannot complete without ketamine, except for the consumption of ketamine itself. Without a computer I cannot perform my job, nor basically perform any modern professional job.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#177

Post by postalrat » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:14 AM UTC

flangola7 wrote: post #48

ulnarkressty wrote: post #15

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.

Less like a BLU-109 and more like a Death Star. Every offensive and defensive military tool will be utterly defeated. How do you fight against a cloud of self contained autonomous kill drones? 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 a…

If cheap drones dropping charges was enough to win the war then why does Ukraine need other weapons?

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#178

Post by Kranar » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:15 AM UTC

corbulo wrote: post #103

hourago wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. The credit score system already in place in the US is frequently as arbitrary in some cases already. You get punished for just looking at it. I don't think I need to preach to HN about that (crypto money and all that). Does Europe do it much differently? Not an…

>The credit score system already in place in the US is frequently as arbitrary in some cases already.

The credit score system is not arbitrary, it's a specific formula that applies equally to everyone.

>You get punished for just looking at it.

No you do not. There are hard inquiries and soft inquiries, and an individual viewing their own credit score is considered a soft inquiry which has absolutely no effect on your credit score.

As for Europe, there is no one homogeneous answer. Different parts of Europe handle credit differently. The UK and Germany are very similar to the U.S., whereas in France there is no concept of a credit rating or credit score.

With that said, generally the countries that do not have a credit scoring system are much harder to get a loan from.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#179

Post by bigDinosaur » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:17 AM UTC

worrycue wrote: post #173

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.

Personally I’m uncomfortable that a centralised government is “choosing the winner” rather than having the standards duke it out on the open market. In this case, USB-C is pretty much expected to win and be the dominant standard - even Apple was already moving towards it way before the mandate - but it’s the principle of it. In what other area will the EU elect itself to “choose the winner” next? The whole thing sets…

This kind of regulation is one of the most basic functions of government, without which trade between states and countries becomes much more difficult. Of all the things a government can do, requiring certain standards on things like connector types seems the most reasonable.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#180

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 2:17 AM UTC

zirgs wrote: post #99

theshrike79 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What stops me from removing that data manually? Some AI tools are open source so nothing prevents me from modifying the code and removing the part that adds those watermarks. Even closed source programs can be patched to remove that functionality.

> nothing prevents me from modifying the code and removing the part that adds those watermarks.

These regulations are aimed at major institutions like banks. Those rely on government-provided privilidges and protectuons to exist. In return we expect they follow some rules.

Nobody cares about AI running in your garage.