Live data from Hacker News

EU Artificial Intelligence Act

artificialintelligenceact.eu

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#111
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, cookie banners are widely regarded as very good.

1) cookie banners are unrelated to the GDPR. 2) implementations of cookie banners that don’t allow users to reject cookies as easily as accepting them are illegal. 3) it is widely regarded as good that companies are obligated to disclose which third parties they are sharing your data with.

> cookie banners are unrelated to the GDPR.

But they showed up to “comply” with gdpr.

> implementations of cookie banners that don’t allow users to reject cookies as easily as accepting them are illegal.

But they are still everywhere, because GDPR is threatening but largely toothless

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nee…

If it gives an edge to any country to do this, they will. It does not have to be the EU or USA. China comes to mind.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#113

I wonder if all those calling ChatGPT and the like “AI” when it’s nothing of the sort regret doing so now. AI is a scary word for certain groups, while machine learning (which is what this is) isn’t. Now you have a bunch of Luddites with pitchforks looking for a witch to burn. What this act will do is severely stunt the European economy compared to the rest of the world, which will be racing ahead (as long as countri…

[dead]

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#114
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From I read earlier (I did not waste time on this article again) EU rules in the propisal that is not definite are about critical stuff. I agree that would be idiotic to let some greedy bastards sell some MedicalGPT to us, or PoliceGPT, SurveilenceGPT. Imagine the MedicaGPT will give you different treatment each time you ask since is not deterministic, or if you change the patient name from Bob to John then it gives…

> different treatment each time you ask since is not deterministic https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/32477/what-is-the-tem... It's unfortunate that EU regulators seem to be making the same mistakes as you because they have a similar understanding of language models.

Can you explain where I am wrong? ChatGPT is non deterministic, did OpenAI sabotaged it intentionally ?

I do not this tech banned, but regulated for safety reason in critical systems. I already get daily spam emails from greedy fucks that want to sell me AI for X, where I am 100% this greedy fucks do not understand the science behind this stuff but just want to make money.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#115
post #83
post #63

For anyone who is jumping to the comments to complain about how more rules from the EU is going to make innovation difficult, I highly recommend you to read the summary presentation: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AI-Presentati... Basically, as I understand it, it divides AI systems (in the broadest sense Machine Learning sense) into risk categories: unacceptable risk (prohibited), high risk, medium/o…

Not going to comment on how determining which risk category a given system falls into. > clean and correct training data If there's a country where majority of poor people have blue skin, and majority of rich people have green skin, and poorer people commit more crimes in general. Then if one of the features (explicitly defined or somehow inferred by model) of your ML model is skin color, it will correctly correlate…

Maybe do a better job on the AI so it correlates poverty to crime instead of skin color to crime, or is able to spot laws created specifically to target and oppress the poor. If the punishment is a fine, then it's legal for the rich

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#116
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> different treatment each time you ask since is not deterministic https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/32477/what-is-the-tem... It's unfortunate that EU regulators seem to be making the same mistakes as you because they have a similar understanding of language models.

Can you explain where I am wrong? ChatGPT is non deterministic, did OpenAI sabotaged it intentionally ? I do not this tech banned, but regulated for safety reason in critical systems. I already get daily spam emails from greedy fucks that want to sell me AI for X, where I am 100% this greedy fucks do not understand the science behind this stuff but just want to make money.

ChatGPT is intentionally nondeterministic for the same reason that GPT3 is nondeterministic by default. temperature>0 results in a better user experience. I'm having a hard time understanding why you'd think a neural network could unintentionally be nondeterministic. If you want inference to be deterministic, just use the same seed every time.

I also have no idea what your spam emails has to do with training models. The linked law prevents companies in the EU from releasing or deploying large models. It does not prevent grifters from spamming you. (not that there are any companies in the EU training state of the art models, but that's a separate issue)

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#117
post #101

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.

And here we are at the core problem: Implementing laws without being able enforce them is not only ridiculous but harmful for the credibility of any governmental institution. This is the core problem of all EU tech regulations.

Instead of developing operational excellence in their prosecution authorities to be able to track down and punish bad actors, they install regulations for everyone and try to simulate competence harming their own economy.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#118
post #83
post #63

For anyone who is jumping to the comments to complain about how more rules from the EU is going to make innovation difficult, I highly recommend you to read the summary presentation: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AI-Presentati... Basically, as I understand it, it divides AI systems (in the broadest sense Machine Learning sense) into risk categories: unacceptable risk (prohibited), high risk, medium/o…

Not going to comment on how determining which risk category a given system falls into. > clean and correct training data If there's a country where majority of poor people have blue skin, and majority of rich people have green skin, and poorer people commit more crimes in general. Then if one of the features (explicitly defined or somehow inferred by model) of your ML model is skin color, it will correctly correlate…

Luckily, lawyers in the 1970s already figured this out, by anticipating the research on causality that computer scientists and mathematicians like Judea Pearl and Peter Spirtes did in the 1990s. Really!

In the first instance, you just can't use race as a feature, since it is a protected characteristic. But, you might also be worried that protected characteristics can generally be easily identified by looking for innocuous traits that correlate (since people tend to cluster into communities). For example, if you know an American's ZIP code and their three favorite musicians, you can determine their race with an accuracy in the high 90s. (Basically, the US is still just as segregated now as it was a hundred years ago, and black and white Americans tend to listen to different music.)

So when the US Civil Rights Act was passed, the courts came up with the idea of "disparate impact" -- when doing something like hiring, you are not allowed to base the decision on features that disproportionately affect one group rather than another, even if they are formally neutral, unless the feature directly impacts the ability to do the job.

In other words, you have to show that the features you are basing the decision on _causally influence_ the decision you are making, exactly like you see in Pearl's causal influence diagrams or structural equation models or whatever. Eg, if you want to hire a math professor, you can base the decision on the articles they published in math journals, but you can't base it on whether they like old school Goa trance.

So, what about black box neural networks, where you don't know which features are being used? In this case, it's pretty clear that you shouldn't use them directly when making a home loan, because the law wants to know what features are in use, and you can't answer the question of whether you're redlining when you have a black box. However, using black box techniques to learn (eg) the best random forest model to use is fine, because it lets you easily see which factors are going into the decision before deploying it.

FWIW, people have been doing this for decades already. (I did stuff like this back in the 1990s.)

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Changing the goalpost?

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#120
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are truly innovative. They are basically reinventing the wheel.

Who cares, as long as they reinvent it with safety screws on it.

Well the point is that Europe is helplessly missing globally competitive innovative shops in important IT sectors. This is a big economical and political problem which is not solved by referring to marginal copycats of existing US services.
Post reply on HN