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

141–150 of 424 posts

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

#141

Post by shortsunblack »

HPsquared wrote: post #86
wiz21c wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. That's the bit everyone forget. GDPR didn't ask for cookie banners at all. It asked for consent in case consent is needed. And most of the time consent is not needed since I just can say "no cookies" to many websites and everything is just fine.

So why does every website persist in annoying their users? Are they all (or 99%) simply stupid? I have a hard time believing that.

It's called dark patterns and malicious compliance . The annoying banners in particular, were designed by IAB Tech Lab, which is an industry front for adtech/martech companies.

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

#142

Post by shortsunblack »

HPsquared wrote: post #87
impossiblefork wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and it is illegal, and has been illegal for a long time. Consent for tracking must be freely given. You can't give someone something in return for it.

Free as in freedom, or free as in beer?

Free as in free from coercion. And GDPR has clear language of 'no detriment'.

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

#143

Post by eru »

aithrowawaycomm wrote: post #137
eru wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it used to be. But whenever we understand something, we move the goal posts of what AI is. At least that's what we used to do.

It's not "moving the goalposts." It's realizing that the principles behind perceptrons / Lisp expert systems / AlphaGo / LLMs / etc might be very useful and interesting from a software perspective, but they have nothing to do with "intelligence," and they aren't a viable path for making machines which can actually think in the same way a chimpanzee can think. At best they do a shallow imitation of certain types of fo…

No, it's still moving the goalposts. It just that we move the goalposts for pretty good reasons. (I agree!)

Btw, you bring up the perspective of realising that our tools weren't adequate. But it's broader: completely ignoring the tools, we also realise that eg being able to play eg chess really, really well didn't actually capture what we wanted to mean by 'intelligence'. Similar for other outcomes.

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

#144

Post by shortsunblack »

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…

You cannot barter with fundamental human rights, which right to data protection is (as per Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), the same way you cannot barter yourself into slavery, even if you insist you are willing and consenting. By what precedent? By the precedent of the state being sovereign in enacting law.

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

#145

Post by shortsunblack »

mhitza wrote: post #45
troupo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of relying on Techcrunch and speculating, you could read sections (33), (42), and (59) of the EU AI Act yourself.

Article 59 seems relevant, other two on a quick skim don't seem to relate to the subject. > 2. For the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including safeguarding against and preventing threats to public security, under the control and responsibility of law enforcement authorities, the processing of personal data in AI regulat…

EU law largely does not regulate national security matters of the states. Though that justification is limited per international law (such as ECHR, which is the basis of many anti-government surveillance rulings by CJEU). All European Union members are part of ECHR because that is a pre-requisite for EU membership.

But ECHR is not part of EU law, especially it is not binding on the European Commission (in the context of it being a federal or seemingly federal political executive). This creates a catch-22 where member states might be violating ECHR but are mandated by EU law, though this is a very fringe consequence arising out of legal fiction and failed plans to federalize EU. Most recently, this legal fiction has become relevant in Chat Control discourse.

Great Britain and Poland have explicit opt-outs out of some European law.

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

#146

Post by nonchalantsui »

nielsole wrote: post #127
unification_fan wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to profile your every thought and emotion. Don't worry though, it's for medical or safety reasons only. Same for your internet history... You know, terrorism and all. Can't have that.

I can definitely see use cases where cameras that detect distressed people can help prevent harm from them and others.

Stop resisting! We detect you are depressed and will take action!

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

#147

Post by bmicraft »

eru wrote: post #143
aithrowawaycomm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "moving the goalposts." It's realizing that the principles behind perceptrons / Lisp expert systems / AlphaGo / LLMs / etc might be very useful and interesting from a software perspective, but they have nothing to do with "intelligence," and they aren't a viable path for making machines which can actually think in the same way a chimpanzee can think. At best they do a shallow imitation of certain types of fo…

No, it's still moving the goalposts. It just that we move the goalposts for pretty good reasons. (I agree!) Btw, you bring up the perspective of realising that our tools weren't adequate. But it's broader: completely ignoring the tools, we also realise that eg being able to play eg chess really, really well didn't actually capture what we wanted to mean by 'intelligence'. Similar for other outcomes.

Moving the goal posts and noticing that that you mistook the street lights for goal posts is not really the same.

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

#148

Post by bmicraft »

hcfman wrote: post #58

I would like to see a new law that puts any member of government found obstructing justice is put in jail. Except that the person responsible for travesty of justice framing 9 innocent people in this Dutch series is currently the president of the court of Maastricht. https://npo.nl/start/serie/de-villamoord Remember. The courts have the say as to who wins and looses in these new vague laws. The ones running the court…

Yes sometimes stuff like this happens. Still, I'd like to think the EU is a prime example for how "reasonable" legislation has benefits over extremely specific legislation. Reasonable wins almost every time with how it fares under changing circumstances and how it's pretty much loop hole proof by design.

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

#150

Post by _bin_ »

lubsch wrote: post #90
gamedever wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no more predicting the weather with sensors?

Which of the criteria of the risk levels that will be regulated which are listed in the article do you think would include weather predictions?

something like a long-term weather forecast could lead to declining to issue an insurance policy for someone's home or automobile in an area. it could significantly impact the price. make it publicly available, and an insurance company could use that prediction. clearly an unacceptable risk
Post reply on HN