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

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#321

Post by mirchibajji » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 12:49 PM UTC

aftbit wrote: post #11

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.

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.

This is a case of people actively building and deciding to use a tool with plausible deniability built-in. How would you regulate people when they shirk any accountability? It is much more reasonable to require that people use a tool that shows its work.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#322

Post by nbzso » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 12:54 PM UTC

Here is a recipe for downvoted comment:

The EU will ask Davos, and Davos will tell Sam Altman to tame it a little.

For now. Because we will all own nothing, and we will be happy:)

How are you feeling today?

Here, get a glimpse of the future of frontend development: https://ai2ui.co/

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#323

Post by Thiez » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 1:00 PM UTC

ilyt wrote: post #316

Thiez wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shame if a child that accidentally threw a ball in your garden steps on them, or even just the overweight neighbours cat. Or a visitor stumbles on them duling a bbq. But such casualties are apparently a small price to pay for feeling safe.

Perfect use case for IoT mines and AI object/face recognition

Why would a hypothetical attacker wander through the garden anyway, instead of walking the normal path to the front door like a normal person? That face recognition will surely blow up the first pizza delivery person that has the misfortune of delivering to your house. I hope you tip well.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#324

Post by LatteLazy » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 1:09 PM UTC

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.

The process is what we have to judge because in inputs are bias, so even if with a perfectly fair process you will get bias outcomes...

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#325

Post by varispeed » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 1:10 PM UTC

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…

The ban is also meaningless. E.g. government ban Ponzi schemes, while themselves running pension schemes very much having most of the attributes of a Ponzi scheme.

Which means if government bans apps designed for social scoring, it's probably just so that government has monopoly over scoring people behaviour.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#326

Post by mytailorisrich » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 1:16 PM UTC

makeitdouble wrote: post #255

RC_ITR wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 an…

Sometimes there seems to be an expectation that people are entitled to a loan if they meet some criteria.

That's not the case. As long as there is no discrimination based on a legally protected characteristic (e.g. race) you can lend to whoever you want based on whatever criteria you want.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#327

Post by seydor » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 1:30 PM UTC

starchild_3001 wrote: post #146

GDPR and DMA that came out of EU internet regulators don't impress me. They make it more arduous to browse the web, reduce the revenue collected by open web (content sites), reduce the quality of internet services, lower the quality of ads, hurt user experience, and hurt businesses who're looking to connect with customers. Looks like EU will be doing the same with AI, and risk locking these countries out of the benef…

The EU represents the views of eu citizens. Generally europe is quite technophobic compared to america & asia

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#328

Post by seszett » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 1:32 PM UTC

throwaway48495 wrote: post #312

LelouBil wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't *banning* generative AI. They are making sure you can't say "the AI chose so" when a client asks you why they were rejected for a loan or something similar.

Funny. I was just filling my tax report and the reason for not accepting some of the deductions I still think I should be getting is "because the program said so". I live in EU. Perhaps the EU should first clean it's own porch before talking about what the private sector should do.

As far as I know most countries have clear, public algorithms for tax reports, may I ask which country you are talking about?

In any case your problem is one of an incompetent person not being able to explain the decision, not a black box algorithm (since the program you are talking about has been programmed, not taught like an AI).

You have recourses (though probably difficult to exercise) unlike with a decision officially based on an AI in which case it is technically impossible to motivate the decision.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#329

Post by danielbln » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 1:34 PM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #309

joenot443 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of people, myself included, who are aware of how much data big tech has already cultivated on us and don’t give a damn if at this point BBC or Mike’s Bike Blog get in on the action too. Really we just wanted to read our article and not be interrupted, so we can go back to what matters more: anything not on the computer. I’ve never felt protected or assisted by the cookie banners, just annoyed and incon…

Well good things laws aren't based on your feelings. I also hate putting my seatbelt on and I'd like yo enjoy real life instead of spending so much time clicking the damn belt With the 0.1s it takes to click on a banner I'm sure you're fine. Most people probably visit less than 50 different websites per month, so at most that would be 50s per months, minus the banners you already clicked on, for which your browser al…

Strong data privacy is good. Dumb side effects that serve no one are not. Cookie banners, or California's "is known to cause cancer" on virtually _everything_ serve no purpose and should be re-designed.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#330

Post by seszett » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 1:36 PM UTC

karmasimida wrote: post #297

Mashimo wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the EU makes a law that companies or public institutions can't use (or limit the use) for AI in recruitment, administration of justice or social scoring, they will just outsource it to the US? And suddenly they are allowed to do it? I have my doubts. They risk risk up to 30 Million EUR or 6% of global revenue in penalties.

EU can ban generative AI if they want, and they might as well give up their place in this new wave of generative AI, which in reality, counting on EU's past records, they could and might go there, but it is stupid and suicidal regardless. But they CAN'T control it. You can't have cake and eat it. Eventually the technology will become so pervasive, that your ever query might go to a service that calls a service that c…

> I doubt EU can audit every API calls, and every API's supply chain issue.

Laws have never made things impossible, they make things illegal.

I doubt any country can prevent people from killing random people in the streets, yet this is generally illegal. It is usually enforced after the fact, and sometimes the criminal doesn't get caught. That doesn't make the law useless.