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

GenChess

labs.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 248 posts

Re: GenChess

#201

Post by dbish »

Deutschlandds wrote: post #153
FredPret wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limiting access for EU users is an easy way to sidestep a hell of a lot of potential legal liability. It’s a fast-moving and complex regulatory environment that is focused on punishing/controlling big US businesses. Option A is to burn a pile of cash and time to keep abreast of it. Option B is simply… block the EU.

Companies like google are quite well equiped to launch anything globally. And in this specific case, its a Chess demo, its probably something different

It is very annoying at most big techs to go through launch approval for something all new and adding yet another approved or checklist for the EU is not worth the tradeoff of time for something experimental/early.

Re: GenChess

#202

Post by dbish »

tommysve wrote: post #161

As an EU citizen, is this an indication that it is about time to leave google services?

It’s an indication that most new products will (and usually do) launch somewhere less strict first. The EU can change that by cutting down on rules but we all know it’s going the opposite direction towards further stagnation with current plans.

Re: GenChess

#203

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #197
mgoetzke wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, always suspicious. I mean the GDPR is not that complicated really, unless you really want to do personalized tracking

I think one of the least wise things a person (or company) can do when faced with any law is to assume that it's "not complicated really." Much, much wiser to assume "there be dragons" and only engage once qualified legal counsel has helped you understand what compliance means to you. And along these lines... The second least wise thing to do in this scenario is listen to randos in a forum like this tell you, "but al…

The problem with thinking like yours is that legislation like GDPR is _really_ made to be simple and straightforward, but since companies whose livelihood depends on them abusing your privacy will fight it tooth and claw, they will gladly make it look like it's more complicated and insurmountable than it really is. They will also devise ways to comply in such ways that's most cumbersome for the end user and will readily blame GDPR for it.

To devise such a way to comply, they definitely need a large and expensive legal department.

The privacy abusers are much like trolls on the internet who, upon seeing a code of conduct (previously known as "rules") consisting of only "don't be a dick", will spawn endless arguments about what a "dick" is and how it is or is not inappropriate word, what does it really mean to be one, or, indeed, to be, question the use of the indefinite article, and complain about "don't" being too assertive and arrogant.

Re: GenChess

#204

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

6510 wrote: post #164
Deutschlandds wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are generalizing extremly without any substinance... 1. its Googles decision to not allow this demo globally. Its a Chess Demo, what EU legal issue do you think makes this a problem? Probably NON... And yes we are not America. Our privacy is getting better protected then that of americans. Move if you don't like it or at least take the time and effort to state clearly what you don't like about certain EU regulati…

I'm allowed to ask for all of the data they have from me. This obviously includes all chess games which obviously is a pain in the ass for a dumb demo that will no doubt be archived next week in some obscure place.

If you don't collect the data, you're not obligated to give it.

Re: GenChess

#205

Post by dole »

ISL wrote: post #109

It didn't recognize essentially any photographer I suggested. Finally got something joyful when asked to create a chess-set inspired by "rooks". Least-playable chess-set ever :).

perhaps more of a weighting system on proper names and whether it’ll return copyrightable material, strange what works and what just doesn’t.

“lisa frank” doesn’t work, but “a clone of lisa frank” does. “deiter rams” doesn’t work, neither does “a clone of deiter rams”, “facsimile”, “design language”…

Re: GenChess

#206

Post by the8472 »

dbish wrote: post #195
supermatt wrote: post #172

Not available in the EU - so I guess the question is what are they collecting off you under the guise of playing chess that would require them to block EU users...

It’s probably not nefarious and just generally not worth the headache of an EU release and going through the checks/requirements for an experiment or early beta. The many rules of the EU stifle speed and change the math for releasing something especially in a big company that has a variety of requirements built up over time to reduce litigation risk or being on the wrong side of one of the overreaching government off…

> going through the checks/requirements

The process should be the reverse of that. Don't collect data unless you have been through the process of checking that it has a legal basis.

Re: GenChess

#207

Post by sangnoir »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #203
sbuttgereit wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the least wise things a person (or company) can do when faced with any law is to assume that it's "not complicated really." Much, much wiser to assume "there be dragons" and only engage once qualified legal counsel has helped you understand what compliance means to you. And along these lines... The second least wise thing to do in this scenario is listen to randos in a forum like this tell you, "but al…

The problem with thinking like yours is that legislation like GDPR is _really_ made to be simple and straightforward, but since companies whose livelihood depends on them abusing your privacy will fight it tooth and claw, they will gladly make it look like it's more complicated and insurmountable than it really is. They will also devise ways to comply in such ways that's most cumbersome for the end user and will read…

> ...they will gladly make it look like it's more complicated and insurmountable than it really is

There are non-malicious explanations for the same pattern of behavior at large organizations - the motivation (malice or not-malice) that seems correct is a Rorschach test.

If I accidentally log IP addresses for EU users that opted out on some throw-away experimental page on my site, Brussels would never find out. If Google does it, it not only has to report the incident, but will most likely be fined. In order to avoid this outcome, they have internal review processes which makes ot "complicated and insurmountable", because how do you justify investing many hours of dozens of lawyers and technical reviewers time for a frivolous, niche AI demo?

Re: GenChess

#210

Post by bongoman42 »

teamspirit wrote: post #18
newsclues wrote: post #10

I feel like we ought to cost things. How much does a court case cost? What is the environmental cost of AI generated content?

All this energy being burned to create shitty images, shitty music, and shitty videos that all amount to essentially shitty memes. I don’t understand how the singular focus isn’t on solving humanity’s problems. We already have artists, we don’t have a cure for cancer or the climate crisis.

In some ways it does reduce the climate crisis. A person sitting on their couch browsing memes is less carbon intensive than someone driving to their friend's place or something outdoors.
Post reply on HN