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

AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 424 posts

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#61

Post by ben_w »

Bancakes wrote: post #15
mdhb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Remind me of the European Silicon Valley and its greatest accomplishments?

In addition to the european groups bought by US big tech, and all the European divisions of American-parented big tech firms?

A quick search reveals DeepMind, Skype, SwiftKey, Shazam, Moodstocks for the former. Bit of overlap with the latter, too, as e.g. AlphaFold is from DeepMind after getting bought.

Quick look on the Apple App store also gets me Komoot (Germany), Trade Republic (Germany), Revolut (UK), Babbel (Germany).

Aside from them, ETH Zürich and CERN are doing pretty good work, too, the latter inventing the modern hypertext based web on which you are currently reading this.

Cambridge has some decent digital tech, also has Metalysis and The Welding Institute and was where the double helix structure of DNA were found and where Stephen Hawking chose to work.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#62

Post by scarface_74 »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #60
scarface_74 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t matter what it requires, the point is as usual, the EU doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology. That partially explains the state of the tech industry in the EU. But guess which had a more deleterious effect on Facebook ad revenue and tracking - Apples ATT or the GDPR?

The EU just prioritises protection for its citizens over tech industry profits. They are also not opposed to ad revenue and tracking; only that people must consent to being tracked, no sneaky spying. I'm quite happy for tech to have those restrictions.

The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#63

Post by robertlagrant »

troupo wrote: post #20
_heimdall wrote: post #5

What I don't see here is how the EU is actually defining what is and is not considered AI. > AI that manipulates a person’s decisions subliminally or deceptively. That can be a hugely broad category that covers any algorithmic feed or advertising platform. Or is this limited specifically to LLMs, as OpenAI has so successfully convinced us that LLMs really are Aai and previous ML tools weren't?

> What I don't see here is how the EU is actually defining what is and is not considered AI. Because instead of reading the source, you're reading a sensationalist article. > That can be a hugely broad category that covers any algorithmic feed or advertising platform. Again, read the EU AI Act. It's not like it's hidden, or hasn't been available for several years already. ---- We're going to get a repeat of GDPR aren…

The briefing on the Act talks about the risk of overly broad definitions. Why don't you just engage in good faith? What's the point of all this performative "oh this is making me so tired"?

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#64

Post by Kbelicius »

scarface_74 wrote: post #62
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU just prioritises protection for its citizens over tech industry profits. They are also not opposed to ad revenue and tracking; only that people must consent to being tracked, no sneaky spying. I'm quite happy for tech to have those restrictions.

The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee.

> The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee.

And? With GDPR the EU decided that private data cannot be used as a form of payment. It can only be voluntarily given. Similarly to using ones body. You can fuck whoever you want and you can give your organs if you so choose but no business is allowed to be payed in sex or organs.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#65

Post by scarface_74 »

Kbelicius wrote: post #64
scarface_74 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee.

> The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee. And? With GDPR the EU decided that private data cannot be used as a form of payment. It can only be voluntarily given. Similarly to using ones body. You can fuck whoever you want and you can give your organs if you so choose but no business is allowed t…

That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves?

But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you? Facebook isn’t sharing your data to others. Ad buyers tell Facebook “Put this ad in front of people between 25-30 who look at pages that are similar to $x on Facebook”

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#66

Post by Kbelicius »

scarface_74 wrote: post #65
Kbelicius wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee. And? With GDPR the EU decided that private data cannot be used as a form of payment. It can only be voluntarily given. Similarly to using ones body. You can fuck whoever you want and you can give your organs if you so choose but no business is allowed t…

That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves? But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you? Facebook isn’t sharing your data to others. Ad buyers tell Facebook “Put this ad in front of people between 25-30 who look at pa…

> That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money.

Well, per GDPR they aren't allowed to do that. Are they giving that option to users outside of EU? Why Not?

> The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves?

No I do not think that. What made you think that I think that?

What about sex and organs? In your opinion should businesses be allowed to charge you with those?

> But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you?

I didn't give it to them. What is so hard to understand about that?

Are you saying that your browsing data isn't private to you? Care to share it?

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#67

Post by scarface_74 »

Kbelicius wrote: post #66
scarface_74 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves? But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you? Facebook isn’t sharing your data to others. Ad buyers tell Facebook “Put this ad in front of people between 25-30 who look at pa…

> That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. Well, per GDPR they aren't allowed to do that. Are they giving that option to users outside of EU? Why Not? > The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves? No I do not think that. What made you think that I think that? What about sex and…

> Well, per GDPR they aren't allowed to do that. Are they giving that option to users outside of EU? Why Not?

Because no other place thinks that their citizens are too dumb to make informed choices.

> What about sex and organs? In your opinion should businesses be allowed to charge you with those?

If consenting adults decide they want to have sex as a financial arrangement why not? Do you think these 25 year old “girlfriends” of 70 year old millionaires are there for the love?

> I didn't give it to them. What is so hard to understand about that?

When you are on Facebook’s platform and you tell them your name, interests, relationship status, check ins, and on their site, you’re not voluntarily giving them your data?

> Are you saying that your browsing data isn't private to you? Care to share it?

If I am using a service and giving that service information about me, yes I expect that service to have information about me.

Just like right now, HN knows my email address and my comment history and where I access this site from.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#68

Post by _heimdall »

troupo wrote: post #20
_heimdall wrote: post #5

What I don't see here is how the EU is actually defining what is and is not considered AI. > AI that manipulates a person’s decisions subliminally or deceptively. That can be a hugely broad category that covers any algorithmic feed or advertising platform. Or is this limited specifically to LLMs, as OpenAI has so successfully convinced us that LLMs really are Aai and previous ML tools weren't?

> What I don't see here is how the EU is actually defining what is and is not considered AI. Because instead of reading the source, you're reading a sensationalist article. > That can be a hugely broad category that covers any algorithmic feed or advertising platform. Again, read the EU AI Act. It's not like it's hidden, or hasn't been available for several years already. ---- We're going to get a repeat of GDPR aren…

Sure, I get that reading the act is more important than the article.

And in reading the act, I didn't see any clear definitions. They have broad references to what reads much like any ML algorithm, with carve outs for areas where manipulating or influencing is expected (like advertising).

Where in the act does it actually define the bar for a technology to be considered AI? A link or a quote would be really helpful here, I didn't see such a description but it is easy to miss in legal texts.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#69

Post by dns_snek »

hcfman wrote: post #55

Laws that are open to interpretation with drastic consequences if it's interpreted against your favour pose unacceptable risk to business investors and stifle innovation.

People said that about GDPR. Laws that don't leave any room for interpretation are bound to have loopholes that pose unacceptable risk to the population.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#70

Post by vitehozonage »

_heimdall wrote: post #5

What I don't see here is how the EU is actually defining what is and is not considered AI. > AI that manipulates a person’s decisions subliminally or deceptively. That can be a hugely broad category that covers any algorithmic feed or advertising platform. Or is this limited specifically to LLMs, as OpenAI has so successfully convinced us that LLMs really are Aai and previous ML tools weren't?

Exactly what i thought too.

Right now, for 10 years at least, with targeted advertising, it has been completely normalised and typical to use machine learning to intentionally subliminally manipulate people. I was taught less than 10 years at a top university that machine learning was classified as AI.

It raises many questions. Is it covered by this legislation? Other comments make it sound like they created an exception, so it is not. But then I have to ask, why make such an exception? What is the spirit and intention of the law? How does it make sense to create such an exception? Isn't the truth that the current behaviour of the advertising industry is unacceptable but it's too inconvenient to try to deal with that problem?

Placing the line between acceptable tech and "AI" is going to be completely arbitrary and industry will intentionally make their tech tread on that line.

Post reply on HN