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

221–230 of 393 posts

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#221

Post by renewiltord »

layer8 wrote: post #147
shagie wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they're used to track who's logged in, they are not required. https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must: Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies. Provide accurate and specific information about the data each cookie tracks and its purpose in plain language before consent is received. Docu…

For persistent logins, a simple “Remember me” checkbox is sufficient, see https://law.stackexchange.com/a/32157 . Analytics and marketing tracking cookies require separate consent, that’s correct. I would prefer websites to refrain from attempting such tracking completely.

Great link, thanks. Minor note: appears that you have to use "Remember me - uses cookies". You have to make it clear you are using cookies for these operations.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#222

Post by renewiltord »

jeroenhd wrote: post #158
lillecarl wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen one on this site, and yet I'm logged in writing this comment. Is HN breaking the law?

Last time I checked, HN doesn't use tracking cookies and other such nonsense. All I see are session cookies to track my login. That doesn't require any form of popup. HN being an American company probably violates some section of the GDPR (not having someone labeled as the privacy officer or some other technicality) but I doubt anyone cares. If you feel your privacy is getting violated, you can try contacting your lo…

It is in violation because it uses cookies for persistent login functionality without making that clear.

It's okay, though. No DPA will go after HN.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#223

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

Switzerland had a huge suicide problem (well by their standards) so they locked up the militia ammunition in communities for the guns Swiss militia members were sent home with.

Also, Switzerland is basically where the USA would be if the first clause of the second amendment was meaningful.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#224

Post by thrashh »

ethbr0 wrote: post #132
thrashh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but you can’t ban something without knowing what it is yet. And if you try, you end up writing something vague that doesn’t actually fix the problem and instead bans something else. Case in point is the EU having to write something vague and it turns out they had no idea what was coming. Maybe just wait until there is a problem before trying to write vague laws IMO.

The problem with black boxes is that they beg parallel construction theories. I.e. "We don't approve loans to {ethnic majority} on purpose. We only use our models, which only rely on historical data." -> No proof, no case, no problem The point of any AI law should be to put the onus on the model executor to explain how their model doesn't violate existing law. You can use any model you want, but you can't point to it…

Companies can already do that without AI. Why would you legislate just AI and let some other company discriminate?

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#225

Post by dmitriid »

int_19h wrote: post #115
talideon wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given you brought up Switzerland, "saving your own life" isn't a valid reason there: concealed carry isn't legal there, and you need a gun-carrying permit to open-carry outside of some very limited circumstances, such as travelling to and from a shooting range. The only people who can easily get gun-carrying permits are those in security and such. In Switzerland, guns exist for recreational and competitive shooting,…

Czechia is a European country you want to look at for an example that you can have gun laws that allow civilians to own handguns and carry them for defensive purposes without problems. US is somewhat unique in the Western world across the board - no public healthcare, generally poor social safety net etc - which means that exercises in causal linking of those unique traits to outcomes are wild guesswork, if one is ta…

> Czechia is a European country you want to look at for an example that you can have gun laws that allow civilians to own handguns and carry them for defensive purposes without problems.

Let's see:

--- start quote ---

A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody subject to acquiring a firearms license. Gun licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license – by passing a gun proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record.

the issuing authority (police) firearm owners' database is connected to information needed for a background check and red flags any incidents that may lead to loss of license requirements. Similarly, health clearance by the general practitioner is needed for periodical renewal of license (every ten years).

* also very specific restrictions depending on license *

Obtaining the license requires passing a theoretical and practical exam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic

--- end quote ---

Oh look, already more strict than many states in the US (and some states are busy removing any restrictions).

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#226

Post by seanmcdirmid »

xdennis wrote: post #68
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.

They are needed if they do anything with cookies and don’t block EU IP addresses: the laws are quite vague, and interpretation has for been quite broad.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#227

Post by renewiltord »

lillecarl wrote: post #151
TekMol wrote: post #31

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…

There are heaps, they're just not as big. We don't celebrate monopolies the same way you do, we don't celebrate exploiting people either.

I get it. It was an identity damaging question that was asked so it feels validating to use an identity reinforcing answer claiming that Europeans don't like monopolies etc etc

However, it is curiously exactly the opposite. Europe suffers from massive regulatory capture and very few breakout disruptive companies to challenge that status quo. The classic example in the dotcom 2 era is Deutsch Telekom and their approach to laundering prices through a totally captured regulator.

Of course Alstom-Siemens et al. will claim that there is no anticompetitiveness to the whole thing. But I think the truth is plain to see.

Personally, I think it's the same thing as always. It's always not the masters of the present who will be the innovators of the future.

It's referred to sort of in the Innovators Dilemma, but not quite. The empires of the ancient world, Chinese and Indian, did not have the Industrial Revolution. The empires of the old world did not have the Silicon Revolution.

Each is too busy protecting the agents of the status quo simply because they cannot risk throwing away their present greatness for future greatness. Almost no human beings can. Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg alone can.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#228

Post by XorNot »

bobthepanda wrote: post #186
thrashh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but you can’t ban something without knowing what it is yet. And if you try, you end up writing something vague that doesn’t actually fix the problem and instead bans something else. Case in point is the EU having to write something vague and it turns out they had no idea what was coming. Maybe just wait until there is a problem before trying to write vague laws IMO.

The original regulation doesn’t actually sound that vague. From TFA > The regulation, proposed by the Commission in 2021, was designed to ban some AI applications like social scoring, manipulation and some instances of facial recognition. It would also designate some specific uses of AI as “high-risk,” binding developers to stricter requirements of transparency, safety and human oversight. The issue is that as writte…

That's still focusing on the wrong problem though: if Madison Square garden had simply told security to eject the lawyer, it would be the same issue. The problem isn't facial recognition, it's that they thought they could or should do this at all.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#229

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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.

People are going to bog you down listing all the practical everyday uses for weapons-grade plutonium, but let's try a different tack. Stipulate for sake of argument that there is something dangerous with no beneficial civilian use, so you want to ban it. But there is public demand for the thing, or a lot of people just hate you banning things and will make every effort to thwart you.

Sellers split the item into parts so none of them individually is the completed item but anyone can buy them and stick them together. So you pass a law that says the "lower bit" is the part that's banned, and they can't sell that part. People start selling "80% lower bits" or whatever the nearest not-illegal thing is that can be converted into it. 3D print files for the part appear on the internet, or detailed instructions for how to manufacture one yourself.

What now? Ban 3D printers and CNC machines? Ban anonymous communications or encrypted communications with anyone outside the jurisdiction, so people can't distribute the parts files? Now you're banning things with beneficial public uses. But if anybody can easily reproduce the thing the thing then the ban is ineffective.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#230

Post by dmitriid »

worrycue wrote: post #182
dmix wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complete lack of design standards is what kills the utility. They should all have 3 buttons: "accept all" or "reject all" or "customize", dead simple. Every time it's a different design, different button text, different options. Usually rejecting = multi layers of options. A perfect example of good intentions making bad policy.

I think the categories should be: - Accept all - Mandatory for function non-tracking cookies only - Reject all There should be a standardised browser accessible interface so browsers can automatically choose the one you want on your behalf based on your browser settings.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN