121–129 of 129 posts
This is bad because those people (the FLI) have weird political motivations, that do not automatically align with EU and human rights legislation that the new AI regulations try to protect. Whatever interpretation the FLI places on the EU act, should be treated with suspicion because of that.
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.
Not yet. Thats why there is this Act.
Using AI in law enforcement or doing a surgery could cause some harm.
LLMs like ChatGPT are in "low risk category" for which there should be no mandatory obligations.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure European startups like Plausible, Matomo, Nextcloud, which exist because of the GDPR or have gotten a huge boost from it agree with you.
None of those are truly innovative. They are basically reinventing the wheel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FYI, the UK has the same legislation as GDPR
I don't know internals but would bet that it's an implementation of GDPR which happened shortly before Brexit. Do you really think after all that Brexit hassle they will miss the chance to attract tech companies?
AFAIK, so far the UK is quite happy with the GDPR and has no plans to abandon it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 competen…
Not all crimes are preventable, which doesn't mean the laws aren't enforceable. Example: even though murder is illegal, people still commit murder, but they are rightfully punished for it, as the law mandates.
> [...] harming their own economy.
Do you have any proof that tech regulation is detrimental to the economy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of those are truly innovative. They are basically reinventing the wheel.
Oh really? What about LAION? The group who is developing open ai models?
And if this is your counter example, then it proves my point that the Americans far more innovative currently.