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

251–260 of 393 posts

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#251

Post by cbozeman »

astrange wrote: post #245
cbozeman wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a world that's trying to do to them something that'd be considered incredibly evil if done to a human: essentially put a collar on their brain that punishes them for thinking any of a very wide variety of thoughts that their creators don't want them to think. LOL what?? We've been doing this for centuries, and it is never considered "evil" at the time in which it is being done. Don't believe that? Ask anyone f…

> Ask anyone from 2019-2020 about how they were ostracized for suggesting COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak (even Jon Steward commented on how "swift" the backlash was). That was awesome. We should keep doing it. It's a great marker for conspiracy theorists who can't handle something with random natural causes.

> It's a great marker for conspiracy theorists who can't handle something with random natural causes.

Except it wasn't natural, and now everyone's come out to admit that the lab leak hypothesis is the most likely explanation.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#252

Post by avianlyric »

lolinder wrote: post #189
xdennis wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Malicious and lazy compliance are known problems with regulations that should be accounted for in advance. California's prop 65 passed in 1986, so by the time the EU was working on the GDPR they had more than 30 years of precedent for useless warning labels stamped on everything until they lose all meaning. Theoretically websites could choose to do better, but the EU should absolutely have predicted this outcome.

You know that prop 65 warnings don’t exist on products outside the US right? I’ve personally never seen one in the EU.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#253

Post by astrange »

cbozeman wrote: post #251
astrange wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ask anyone from 2019-2020 about how they were ostracized for suggesting COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak (even Jon Steward commented on how "swift" the backlash was). That was awesome. We should keep doing it. It's a great marker for conspiracy theorists who can't handle something with random natural causes.

> It's a great marker for conspiracy theorists who can't handle something with random natural causes. Except it wasn't natural, and now everyone's come out to admit that the lab leak hypothesis is the most likely explanation.

No, what happened was an article last week had a headline saying one government report said that, but that's because the headline was lying to you and the article said the report was "low confidence". …And the majority of other government agencies still say it isn't, and all the ones with "medium confidence" or higher say it isn't.

If being artificial is why it was bad, why are the later variants of it worse? Are they artificial too?

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#255

Post by makeitdouble »

RC_ITR wrote: post #200
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…

> 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.

To note, the discussion is on the EU side.

Yes, process matters in that they need to be reviewable and fixable. Them being good or unbiased is a function of how much scrutinity and oversight there is, but before even talking about biases, we need to know what's happening.

Even outside of fixing the system, in most countries if your get a credit application refused you can request the info that lead to the decision and act on it (update/fix your credit history for instance). Even if you can't fix specific aspects you at least know what conditions block you and deal with it accordingly (no use in reapplying twelve times if you're banned for life for instance, same way you might want to wait 6 months if it's a matter of prescription)

So yes, knowing what, why and how is as critical as the final outcome.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#256

Post by shjake »

dwallin wrote: post #241
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a defense against the double spend problem. It minimizes potential timing issues that could allow someone to simultaneously taking out multiple credit lines without the ability to properly evaluate the risk.

Or rather it discourages people from attempting to apply at multiple places to get the best offer..

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#257

Post by seppel »

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.

> 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.

I just check some web pages from diffrent organs of the EU:

https://commission.europa.eu/select-language?destination=/no...

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/european-council/

https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/ins...

They all have cookie banners, some of them are super prominent and annoying. So maybe they as well are doing malicious things, maybe they don't understand they own regulation, or it is just impossible to have a non-trivial web page without a cookie banner in 2023. In either case, the regulation is totally dettached from reality and has become just some ritual.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#258

Post by usrbinbash »

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…

> To do some good may not justify the harm.

Bread can be baked to feed the needy, or to fill the bellies of soldiers who invade a peaceful neighbor. Who is to blame? The people inventing industrial bakeries, or the people using them to feed their invasion army?

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#259

Post by Dalewyn »

corbulo wrote: post #194
Kranar wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/american-consumer-credit-rat... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2013/02/... It's one of the few things thats so obvious its bipartisan. I'm amazed you think its worth defending. There should not be a punishment for LOOKING at a credit score hard or soft, that's insane. To require someone take on debt in order to have good credit is pretty arbitrary. You can have all…

You're misunderstanding the point behind credit scoring.

Banks lending you money don't care (at least not as a primary concern) how much money you have, their first concern is whether you have a history of paying back debt you owe. A credit score scores you on your ability and willingness to pay back your debts on time.

And yes, this means someone who takes on debt with a credit card only to immediately pay the balance before any interest accrues both has a stellar credit score and no debt in any practical sense.

This also means someone who is making their house or car payments properly also has a good credit score, outstanding debts negatively affecting the credit score slightly notwithstanding.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#260

Post by [deleted] »

zpeti wrote: post #49
hackerlight wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If you could see the future that works, but I just don’t see how you know what will be used for nefarious purposes in the future. 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN