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

EU Artificial Intelligence Act

artificialintelligenceact.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#101

Post by mrtksn »

nforgerit wrote: post #98
mrtksn wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit actually comes from forcing companies to keep good track of the personal data. Now, the personal data is something they need to think about how to handle and store, the downloading part for me so far was about curiosity.

> The benefit actually comes from forcing companies to keep good track of the personal data Who is checking for that? Can you give me an example of any public authority within the EU that has the operational excellence to even understand how BigTech is collecting and handling data? For Germany I only see Ulrich Kelber who certainly does not have the competence to even understand how BigTech is doing their things.

It's not about going around and checking but being responsible about it. Thanks to GDPR companies do have someone designated to deal with these things and if they screw up and something bad happens they are liable.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#102

Post by duringmath »

hammyhavoc wrote: post #89
duringmath wrote: post #9

Why is everyone in a hurry to regulate AI? I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM. Besides "AI" is largely a marketing term, most software has "AI" elements and that has been the case for a while now, this thing has "unintended consequences" written all over it.

> I can't think of one example where someone was harmed by an LLM. Off the top of my head: https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-com... https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/06/defamed-by-chatgpt-my-...

I don't think you should base regulations on these particular instances, the defamation one is describing a bug, it happens in every piece of software and I don't even want to address the first one.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#103

Post by makeitdouble »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #65
makeitdouble wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The act is about automated processes, "AI" or not.

Do you think it’s coincidence that it came about during the middle of a massive hype wave with widespread talk of how AI will figuratively take over the world? Automated processes have existed for nearly 100 years.

Are you blaming them for pushing updates to existing regulations and reacting in a timely manner to the direction the markets are pushing their money into ?

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#104

Post by zosima »

mrtksn wrote: post #95
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's not how EU works Today. > People appear to be extracting drama Makes sense considering that the drama influences subsequent reviews and changes.

Let's worry about the imaginary future in the future.

Why not apply this principle when making laws?

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#105

Post by anonylizard »

mrtksn wrote: post #49
anonylizard wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh they don't flee, they just don't bother to start new ones in the EU. Which of the new AI labs is setup in EU? Stability? Midjourney? Anthropic? Cohere? Every single one is either in the US or UK. LLM companies deal with huge legal uncertainties, especially around data and privacy. Hence investors are reluctant to fund any in the EU, and potential founders are deterred. This is all legacy of the GDPR and the 'regul…

Europe missing out in tech has much longer history than EU itself. here is a quick watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZdmS-EAbHo I have no idea why would you claim that with the introduction of GDPR Europe lost on tech. By tech I mean the SV industry, there are many other technologies out there. Anyway, why all the "tech" is in SV? Do they have GDPR in the other states?

Midjourney is not in SV, its remote. Stability is HQ-ed in London.

There are plenty of smaller AI startups splattered across the US.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#107

Post by zmnd »

mrtksn wrote: post #93
zmnd wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some examples of you needing to download your data? What actions did you take based on it? How often do you do it?

The benefit actually comes from forcing companies to keep good track of the personal data. Now, the personal data is something they need to think about how to handle and store, the downloading part for me so far was about curiosity.

The fact that you can download some data, presented as “all data”, doesn’t mean that it’s actually properly stored and handled. No way to verify or enforce it.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#108

Post by zmnd »

mrtksn wrote: post #101
nforgerit wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The benefit actually comes from forcing companies to keep good track of the personal data Who is checking for that? Can you give me an example of any public authority within the EU that has the operational excellence to even understand how BigTech is collecting and handling data? For Germany I only see Ulrich Kelber who certainly does not have the competence to even understand how BigTech is doing their things.

It's not about going around and checking but being responsible about it. Thanks to GDPR companies do have someone designated to deal with these things and if they screw up and something bad happens they are liable.

If it was just a matter of designating someone, major mobile carriers wouldn’t store passwords as plaintext.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#110

Post by UncleEntity »

felipemnoa wrote: post #58
bitL wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power grab and preservation. This will be quickly approved to preserve existing players and power status quo (lawyers, managers and doctors don't want to be automated away).

If an AI comes along that is able to do their job better than them then they will not have a say in that. No matter how many regulations the government puts up. Is like trying to regulate cars to save the horse shoe industry. And if doctors can be automated away so can software developers. I guess in the long term we are all obsolete.

> Is like trying to regulate cars to save the horse shoe industry.

Which was quite common in the early days of automobiles. There also wasn’t quite the massive bureaucratic regulatory system back then.

The big difference is these AI doctors will need to be certified by, wait for it… current doctors. Or, at the very least, the training data (haven’t RTFA so that’s the example being thrown around the comments) will need to be certified.

Judging by how the EU countries deal with labor issues I think there’s little chance robots will replace human doctors for a long, long time.

Post reply on HN