Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 709 posts

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#231

Post by PrimeMcFly »

th18row wrote: post #221
Zurrrrr wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, that's the whole point. The Deloitte page I linked to gives a Chinese web store located in China with no EU presence as an example. It's bonkers that the EU thinks they can enforce their laws in a situation like that. But then, that's why it hasn't been tested. It's basically a 'feel good' law with no teeth (at least the extraterritorial aspects).

That's correct, there'no possible enforcement. I think the beaurocrats in the EU don't even know what they are doing with most of the policies or "fines" they try to impose. It will drive Europe to a sort of digital isolationism where offshore companies will either a) dismiss and continue b) cease operations there.

> I think the beaurocrats in the EU don't even know what they are doing with most of the policies or "fines" they try to impose.

I think it's like I said, it's a lot of "feel good" laws.

> It will drive Europe to a sort of digital isolationism where offshore companies will either a) dismiss and continue b) cease operations there.

I think it's more likely the US adopts a softer version of the GDPR, and it will be the EU and the US and the Commonwealth countries vs pretty much other more restricted Internet 'islands'.

I really hope we have a working decentralized alternative before that happens. It's something I want to start contributing to later this year, because I think it really needs to be a priority.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#232

Post by unixgoddess »

SanderNL wrote: post #125

'exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."' So do (certain) books. That's another issue right? If you let your minor access stuff, they.. access stuff. Hard to control? I know and it is. How is this specific to OpenAI?

wikipedia is full of amateur dick pics (vulvas too!)

but perhaps the difference is that chatgpt could tell them stuff like "yeah, you should kill yourself"?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#233

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

SanderNL wrote: post #209
riffraff wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is this specific to OpenAI? it's not, that's why there are consent thingies on websites (e.g. when you could not sign up for instagram as a minor). I don't know what strange thing the regulator found in chatgpt, but it's pretty standard.

It would be really sad to shut down one of the most influential pieces of tech in modern history because they didn't implement the "consent dialog" just right.

> didn't implement the "consent dialog" just right

I think it’s called a “consent thingy”

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#234

Post by vfistri2 »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #135
atsjie wrote: post #76

I don't understand this? What is so different from ChatGPT compared to say Google scraping and storing the entire world wide web?

It's new, foreign and confusing. That's all it takes to be offending for conservatives.

I would call it very woke, exaggerating political correctness to the point of being clownish.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#235

Post by HPsquared »

register wrote: post #152
atsjie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are the same, why hasn't Google been banned in Italy all these years? There must be something fundamentally different between the two, and I'm not sure what it is.

OpenAI is not complying with GDPR regulations and has failed to provide the Italian government with information needed to comply with the regulations. It has 20 days to comply. I find that this should be the norm for this kind of services. Otherwise it is just Far West in the name of progress and the benefit of few.

Don't you think the users of ChatGPT (et al.) also benefit substantially from using it? Hardly "the few", it's free to use!

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#236

Post by PeterisP »

sorokod wrote: post #155
SanderNL wrote: post #125

'exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."' So do (certain) books. That's another issue right? If you let your minor access stuff, they.. access stuff. Hard to control? I know and it is. How is this specific to OpenAI?

Do you see the qualitative difference between all of the following that can cause harm: * a box of matches * a handgun * an assault rifle * a 50 cal BMG * an ICBM with nuclear MIRV Saying that X has a property similar to the one Y has while ignoring the magnitude of the difference is silly.

I think that on the scale from a box of matches to a 50 cal BMG, "exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."'" is equivalent to a flower.

This is simply not on the scale of dangerous things - if something exposes minors to answers unsuitable to their degree of development, well, that's completely fine. With this particular argument there's no tradeoff of "is it justified to do X to protect against the bad thing Y" because in this case Y is zero, preventing this justifies literally nothing.

If parents want to disallow their kids from reading "unsuitable answers", that's between the parents and the kids, but it doesn't imply that "unsuitable answers" should be somehow limited.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#237

Post by cowl »

SanderNL wrote: post #179
sorokod wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see the qualitative difference between all of the following that can cause harm: * a box of matches * a handgun * an assault rifle * a 50 cal BMG * an ICBM with nuclear MIRV Saying that X has a property similar to the one Y has while ignoring the magnitude of the difference is silly.

Your point is GPT is way more dangerous? I guess I can be nonchalant about this topic. For me personally I cannot imagine something worse than either books or anything you can already access on the internet. To me it is not an assault rifle as you say, but I understand that's just an opinion.

Books are under control, children can not enter a library and get Adult books. The internet in general can have filters and many Parents activate personal firewalls for this purpose. Even Google has safeSearch that filters results for explicit adult or violent content. ChatGpt right now does not have these "parental controls". yes you can bypass most of them but you need to know technical details. they can not be bypassed just by saying "disable the filters".

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#238

Post by sebzim4500 »

jacquesm wrote: post #162
Zurrrrr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can always just sell via their US site, and the onus would be on the EU to block the site within their borders. Although realistically no big company would really do this.

One tried the reverse and its CEO went to jail.

I think the chance of the US extraditing Sam Altman or Satya Nadella to the EU is basically zero.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#239

Post by SanderNL »

mrpopo wrote: post #226
SanderNL wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a unpopular opinion about this, but IMO it is the population that causes this. Vast swaths of Europe are rural especially in the south. Very, very averse to any kind of change. I'm in the Netherlands as you can tell and 'even' we are not that much more progressive. There is currently a massive farmer uprising and everybody is complaining literally non-stop about just about everything. Meanwhile nobody has even…

But why? Why do we need to stop rurality and farming? If people want to keep doing it, why stop them?

I don't care, but a few decades ago we signed some papers at the EU level that said we should stop doing them in the way we do them. I know it sucks, but the Dutch are fast at pointing out other countries' misbehaviour so it's IMO only fair that we comply with what we said we would do.

Massive simplification, but I don't think it's a completely unfair characterisation.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#240

Post by sebzim4500 »

pmontra wrote: post #212
quadcore wrote: post #30

[chatgpt translation] Stop ChatGPT until it complies with privacy regulations. The Guarantor for the protection of personal data has imposed, with immediate effect, the temporary limitation of data processing of Italian users by OpenAI, the US company that developed and manages the platform. The Authority has simultaneously opened an investigation. ChatGPT, the most famous among relational artificial intelligence sof…

The most important point seems to be "the absence of a legal basis justifying the massive collection and retention of personal data, for the purpose of "training" the algorithms" IMHO that would block every LLM.

I think they are objecting to the prompts being submitted by the users through the UI for finetuning, not the data used in pretraining.
Post reply on HN