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

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#361

Post by nebalee » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 4:12 PM UTC

varispeed wrote: post #325

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.

The proposal bans the use of AI-based social scoring by the governments (public authorities) or on their behalf.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#362

Post by ampersandwhich » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 4:36 PM UTC

jdasdf wrote: post #275

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.

>It's not the EU's fault that you have to click cookie banners. Yes it is.

No it's not.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#363

Post by nebalee » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

pmontra wrote: post #244

The high risk use cases for hammers and nails don't mean we ban them. It means that we go after people who used a hammer to kill somebody as if they did it using their hands. No need for special legislation.

It's a good thing, then, that the EU has no intention to ban AIs.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#364

Post by IMTDb » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 4:45 PM UTC

cccbbbaaa wrote: post #85

influx wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously one of the stupidest regulations I've ever seen. It would have been nice if they would have at least had the forethought to enforce regulation on a do not track header.

Neither ePrivacy nor GDPR require cookie consent popups, instead they basically say that tracking requires consent. GDPR only mentions cookies once, in its recitals. It's the adtech industry that decided to ignore DNT.

> Neither ePrivacy nor GDPR require cookie consent popups

Except that it does. The law specifically prohibits any form of consent that is not informed and specific. As a consequence, a user cannot just consent - or disallow - cookies globally. He has to tick a box for every single domain on earth; and can only do so after reading the specific information box associated to said domain.

As a user, saying "I am OK with analytics cookies but not with marketing ones" is not something I am allowed to express or setup. I have to do it for every domain because the law explicitly forbids a global solution to be implemented.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#365

Post by ESMirro » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 4:59 PM UTC

sensanaty wrote: post #265

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…

I guess mass, unchecked data harvesting is a "waft of fresh air" to yanks? Makes sense once you consider the usual target demographic of HN, which is the temporarily temporarily embarrassed millionaire type. Here's to hoping that the EU does indeed kill the cancer that is A"I" before it ruins the world with all of the "fresh" air it blows over the entire internet.

Agreed. These threads always bring out the myopic xenophobes.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#366

Post by flangola7 » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 5:19 PM UTC

roca wrote: post #311

narrator wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have your drones. You also have your own personal chatbot that tells you when to ignore instructions from super-persuader AIs that would get you to kill yourself , spend all your money, or fall madly in love with an LLM if you didn't have a personal chatbot to protect you from their persuasive capabilities.

What if your personal chatbot was subverted by the super-persuader, or was controlled by it from the beginning? Impossible to be sure. We're going to have to stop talking to machines.

> We're going to have to stop talking to machines.

Unfortunately that's going to limit us to talking to people physically in front of us. Society is going to be ugly soon.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#367

Post by flangola7 » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

postalrat wrote: post #177

flangola7 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The current drones are limited in capability: can't reliably hit moving targets or assault infantry indoors, to start.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#368

Post by chipsa » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

flir wrote: post #342

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's wrong with making manufacture and possession illegal?

How well did the war on booze go? How well is the war on drugs going?

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#369

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

cbozeman wrote: post #168

anigbrowl wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europeans love technology, but they also love other things, like privacy and equitable outcomes. There is plenty of computer industry in Europe, it is just not as focused on consumer brands.

> equitable outcomes There's your problem right there. Soviet Russia ought to have shown everyone in Europe how well "equitable outcomes" work out. You'll never achieve equitable outcomes until you also achieve equitable input. Good luck with that.

Oh for heaven's sake. You seem to think any sort of policy choice balancing the interests of companies and consumers or maximizing accessibility of technology (like requiring USB-C ports) is Communism. Go poop on your own lawn if that's what you want to do.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#370

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 6:30 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #156

anigbrowl wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every business has a website. GDPR compliance, albeit nominal, seems widespread, or there wouldn't be so many complaints about acknowledging cookies.

And those websites that are designed for EU users will have EU rules applied. It's just that it'll remain trivial to go to the other website which does not have that, and people will do this as long as that other website feels more useful to them, for whatever reason.

As I said above, the widespread compliance with GDPR opt-out regulations refutes your point. Perhaps there are some people boycotting all sites which offer such things, but I think their numbers are negligible.