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

241–250 of 709 posts

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#241

Post by SanderNL »

voidfunc wrote: post #228
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…

The US has massive areas of rural space and a political system that gives a lot more power to rural areas than they realistically should have and we don't run into this problem so I don't think it's rural vs urban.

I agree. I guess I should have said "mentality" or "culture". It's deeper than living in "rural areas" indeed.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#242

Post by hedora »

cowl wrote: post #237
SanderNL wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 byp…

Books are definitely not under control, and neither is internet search.

Parents can try to block chatgpt with a firewall if they wish. It’s no less likely to work than blocking other internet sites.

Edit: Also, LLMs do have mandatory parental controls. They work about as well as book censorship, safe search or internet blacklists (very, very poorly).

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#243

Post by SanderNL »

cowl wrote: post #237
SanderNL wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 byp…

ChatGPT is an internet service. It's easy to block.

I disagree it's easy to block the internet in general, but I get the point (I think).

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#244

Post by Aromasin »

dagorenouf wrote: post #130

Europe on top of innovation once again. Watch out US and China! /s (I say this as a French citizen)

About once a week I consider dropping out of the tech industry and becoming a politician just so I don't have to sit and watch by the sidelines as incompetent, ignorant people, who studied humanities with not a drop a technical aptitude, bullshit their way through funding and regulating technology. They are never well informed enough to come up with any sort or coherent solution, because they're barely capable in actually grasping the issue in the first place. They're just not qualified enough to know who they should be taking advice from, and who are the obvious snake oil peddlers.

I live in the UK. Our Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is a woman called Michelle Donelan. She graduated with a BA in history and politics, and her career outside of being a career politician was in marketing, including a time working on Marie Claire magazine and for World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). How in the world is she qualified for to run the nations tech initiatives? If she was appointed as CEO of a tech company, the stock would sink like a rock over night. Dare I even get started on Michael Gove, who originally wanted the role...

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#245

Post by salawat »

gumballindie wrote: post #139
drstewart wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I allow you to read my content in exchange for money or traffic. Hold on, when did I consent to you monetizing my traffic? I just want to read your content. Pay me a share of the money and then we'll see if I want to allow you to use my traffic to make money.

An excellent point. That's why we have GDPR in europe to prevent me from using you as a source of income without your consent.

Or, knowingly/unknowingly allowing someone else to. Really GDPR is the implementation of an actual legal requirement around the old concept of professional discretion. I.e. my business records with a European Citizen are not valid targets of subsequent unrelated transactions without consent; something which is importantly defined as not being granted by default, or invalidated when obtained through deceptive means.

That the rest of the tech world was so enraptured by the fact that suddenly, handing off people's business records to somebody else no longer involved literally moving boxes of paper, and threw professional discretion to the winds is more an indictment of the state of mind and sense of entitlement of the typical tech-enabled business class as a whole than a condemnation of the allegedly "backward" European Union.

t. American Technologist actually proud of the EU for standing up for common decency, and recognizing exploitive behavior when they see it.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#246

Post by emporas »

martin_a wrote: post #26
favsq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way does ChatGPT behave like they own the world?

By indexing and training on everything it can find in the internet?! To explain this further: OpenAI et al. (as commercial products) are being trained on content that is published under licenses that allow non-commercial use only. Do those systems respect these licenses? It doesn't look like that. "AI companies" need to stick to laws but as nobody is able to look inside their blackboxes, we can't make sure they follo…

They don't copy and reproduce the data. They change it sufficiently for the licence to have any say. Fair use it's called.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#247

Post by revelio »

br1brown wrote: post #181
revelio wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do notify you and explain it: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6613520-phone-verificati... This is also covered under the "consent" lawful basis part of the GDPR. The bug is not a problem. GDPR covers data leaks. If you're an EU company you have to inform your DPA within 72 hours, and the users affected. It's not illegal to have such breaches. OpenAI isn't an EU company so doesn't have a DPA, but it did notif…

yes ok, for the law though there had to be my assent communicated by active action because I could decide that I don't want it to be used for the purposes listed in that article and consequently not get the account I still don't find the guarantor's request unimpeachable

They say they do the verification for "security reasons", which is a lawful basis and accepted justification under GDPR (it helps them control abuse and make bans stickier). You assented to it when you signed up.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#248

Post by rcarr »

cft wrote: post #202
nih0 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get you, feels like our politicians dont understand anything but sometimes I enjoy living somewhere where companies cant just do anything.

I'm an American that have been living in Europe for 15 months. My perspective is that Europe is ruled by old aristocracy that is happy with the way the life is. They're very afraid of any change, especially of giving people something constructive to do on a large scale. Another reason might be that Europe went through the two World wars, and therefore they're generally scared of any change.

This. Exactly this. I got downvoted to hell the last time I expressed this sentiment so it’s nice to have my opinion validated by a set of fresh eyes.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#249

Post by birracerveza »

unixgoddess wrote: post #232
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"?

lmao please, I can't even get ChatGPT to be a decent DM for a DnD bot because "killing that orc would hurt the orc's feelings" or some bs like that.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#250

Post by swores »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #225
jacquesm wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I meant no insult, but I see no other explanation. Then maybe you should consult the guidelines.

> Then maybe you should consult the guidelines. And if someone is continuing to ignore facts and claim clearly false things as you were, what is the polite way to point that out?

I'll jump in here between the two of you and say that from my point of view it's you ignoring facts not jacquesm. I accept that if you believe jacquesm to be arguing in bad faith there's not a way to say that without it being a little bit rude, but I believe that description actually applies to your comments and not theirs.

edit: your original claim-

> GDPR tries to enforce its rules on servers outside of its territory.

It's enforcing rules on data sent to/from people in the EU and the servers (not just servers ofc), i.e. on companies offering their services to people in the EU. If the companies don't wish to follow the laws of a specific country (or in this case, all EU countries), they're welcome to not provide services to those users.

Since you seem to think the example they gave doesn't count because it's a Californian law not federal (not sure why that matters...), how about stuff like "The FTC engages with competition and consumer protection agencies in other countries to halt deceptive and anticompetitive business practices that affect U.S. consumers." ( https://www.ftc.gov/policy/international ) which includes laws such as COPPA ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_... )

Or let's say there's a country in Europe where hacking and ransomeware are completely legal, and a company in that country focussed their ransomeware efforts on attacking American companies. Would you argue that either the USA wouldn't care about that because it's outside their jurisdiction, or that they shouldn't care because it's outside their jurisdiction?

Post reply on HN