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

231–240 of 248 posts

Re: GenChess

#231

Post by dbish »

the8472 wrote: post #206
dbish wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or don’t launch in EU until you have to, which is what most do now so your choice

Re: GenChess

#232

Post by the8472 »

sangnoir wrote: post #229
the8472 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At work all our products do not eat children by default and it would require legal review to add any such feature. Therefore we don't need a procedure to make sure that any child-eating components get disabled in regions that have some concerns about child-eating.

> At work all our products do not eat children by default and it would require legal review to add any such feature. I bet the people at Peloton thought that too until they made that treadmill[1]. I know you meant your critique to be absurd, but it turns out creating a child eating machine by accident is entirely possible. I also bet Peloton product development now includes a process to review child-eatingness despit…

Logging some PII by accident is also an issue and can also lead to compromises, but I think intentionally collecting it in bulk is the primary concern here. With google I assume bulk data collection is their default stance and that's why they need to carefully trim it down just enough that the lawyers say is justifiable rather than the other way around. That's the problem I'm gesturing at.

Re: GenChess

#233

Post by Aeolun »

sfitz wrote: post #118
Aeolun wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine what the kids (or any of the other lesser people) would do if they got their grubby little hands on it?

perhaps due to the risk of a profane prompt giving an undesired result to someone underage?

I’m inclined to say that if they enter prompts like that the result is very much desired.

Re: GenChess

#234

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #214
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok... Let's assume this is true (which I'll reiterate, that I contend assuming so is foolish). What happens when courts have interpretations of this "simple law?" Do the courts make an effort to keep things simple and in plain language? Or do lawyers and bureaucrats do what they can to drive unintuitive interpretations, but favorable to their cause, of otherwise plain language? Are European laws such as this subject…

You should probably do some trivial research. No, there is no case law in most of Europe, for sure in none of EU.

Re: GenChess

#236

Post by 71bw »

croes wrote: post #175
71bw wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per usual. If we weren't such a big market we'd already be left behind by everyone else due to all the bullshit happening in the EU legal-wise.

This bullshit prevents the worst misuse of data of EU citizens

And yet I don't see this "misuse" almost ever abroad?

Re: GenChess

#237

Post by lewispollard »

ButterWashed wrote: post #12

I'm fascinated by what prompts lead to 'Please try a different prompt.' New Zealand or Australia lead to the aforementioned error, but The Antipodes generates a set. I thought individual countries had been banned for possibly generating offensive content but it works for Great Britain.

Pali suttas doesn't work, but Pali sutta does. It's a weird filter.

Re: GenChess

#240

Post by Asraelite »

sangnoir wrote: post #207
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Go…

> If I accidentally log IP addresses for EU users that opted out

If opting out is a possibility, then it's not essential data. If it's not essential data, what legitimate reason would you have to collect it in the first place?

Post reply on HN