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.
[dead]
ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
211–220 of 393 posts
Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
This framing is terribly paternalistic. If a person is taking a drug, they themselves are who is possessing and using it. They aren't some mere passive subject for doctors to be acting on. Furthermore, they shouldn't be forced to convince some doctor-bureaucrat they have some specific medical condition, or even a "medical condition" at all, to be allowed the treatment they'd like to try.
Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Does the government really knows what the market wants in a standard? Some people will benefit from their standard being chosen as the winner. This is just corruption waiting to happen. It’s fine I guess if the choices are functionally identical (although that still leaves the issue of corruption if there is money involved) or the market has already clearly chosen what it wants by mass adopting a standard (USB-C has…
Right… so we won’t have any regulation on wall socket design or voltages then, I guess. It’ll be great!
Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
You are right to feel insulted, because this relationship is upside down. The founders of "the land of the free" were aware of this problem and that's why everywhere in the founding documents they talk about "the people" that must have liberties, vs "the state" that must be kept on leash. The civil forfeiture problem shows just that: the state has insatiable desire to control the people, and it finds way to do so despite an elaborate framework to keep its tentacles short.
Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
#215Earlier 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…
”Does Europe do it much differently?”
Yes (Finland and afaik other nordic countries at least).
The lenders use statistics, not individul spying to set their rates.
Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's a specific formula that applies equally to everyone. That doesn’t mean the formula is reasonable or transparent. An AI is also a specific formula that applies equally to everyone. It’s about how the formula takes “weight” on the individual’s differences. > There are hard inquiries and soft inquiries Why there are “hard inquiries”? Why someone else inquiring my credit score should affect my credit score?
I certainly don’t love the system, but the difference is “checking credit score in order to take more credit (eg a loan or credit card)” (hard) vs “checking credit score for my own knowledge” (soft). This distinction feels reasonable to me.
How is it reasonable? Anyone checking your credit score already knows that you're applying for new credit, because you're applying for new credit with them.
Dinging your score over that only punishes you for soliciting credit offers from multiple lenders at once so you can choose the best terms. Which ought to be an antitrust violation.
Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. this is exactly what people against gun control say
The difference is that a gun is a tool with a single use-case.
there are a lot of use cases for shooting something.
war, policing, defense, hunting, animal control, shooting down flying objects, remotely activating something from afar, immobilizing a car.
Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
#218Earlier 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…
> 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. Genuinely, why does process matter? Shouldn’t outcomes? Maybe you’re not from the US, but we have a looooong history of “good unbiased processes” leading to awful and biased outcomes.
Outcomes are what the process decides. If you had some other process that could tell you what the outcome should be, you could have just used that as the original process.
Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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)
You are right to feel insulted, because this relationship is upside down. The founders of "the land of the free" were aware of this problem and that's why everywhere in the founding documents they talk about "the people" that must have liberties, vs "the state" that must be kept on leash. The civil forfeiture problem shows just that: the state has insatiable desire to control the people, and it finds way to do so des…
And yet all of these issues, when they come up, are invariably happening in the "land of the free", not in the "totalitarian state dystopia of the EU and neighboring countries".
Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI
#220Why 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.
Just a note: gun control doesn’t do much because American gun manufacturers produce more than 10 million guns a year for the domestic consumer market. A ban would basically say no to that. What we have are laws against gun usage without any real constraints on a massive supply.
It doesn’t make sense to use gun ban and gun control interchangeably.