EU has become a true dystopia.
It's really sad what happened to EU after von der Leyen took over. Someone must stop here and the EU commission or we will fall even more into irrelevance.
AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
181–190 of 424 posts
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the laws text: For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: (1) ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that c…
Notably, Recital 12 says the definition "should not cover systems that are based on the rules defined solely by natural persons to automatically execute operations." https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Glossary/UKPracti... describes a bit of how recitals interact with the operating law; they're explicitly used for disambiguation. So your hip new AI startup that's actually just hand-written regexes under the ho…
> Notably, Recital 12 says the definition "should not cover systems that are based on the rules defined solely by natural persons to automatically execute operations."
That's every AI system. It follows the rules defined solely by the programmers (who I suppose might sometimes stretch the definition of natural persons) who made pytorch or whatever framework.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notably, Recital 12 says the definition "should not cover systems that are based on the rules defined solely by natural persons to automatically execute operations." https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Glossary/UKPracti... describes a bit of how recitals interact with the operating law; they're explicitly used for disambiguation. So your hip new AI startup that's actually just hand-written regexes under the ho…
It doesn't seem to be clear to me whether auto-formatted code (or even generated code from copilot for example) would be classified as AI.
It seems to me the key phrase in that definition is "that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment" - If your code doesn't change its own operation without needing to be redeployed, it's not AI under this definition. If adaptation requires deployment, such as pushing a new version, that's not AI.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notably, Recital 12 says the definition "should not cover systems that are based on the rules defined solely by natural persons to automatically execute operations." https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Glossary/UKPracti... describes a bit of how recitals interact with the operating law; they're explicitly used for disambiguation. So your hip new AI startup that's actually just hand-written regexes under the ho…
> Notably, Recital 12 says the definition "should not cover systems that are based on the rules defined solely by natural persons to automatically execute operations." That's every AI system. It follows the rules defined solely by the programmers (who I suppose might sometimes stretch the definition of natural persons) who made pytorch or whatever framework.
It means a decision tree where every decision node is entered by humans is not an AI system, but an unsupervised random forest is. It’s not difficult to see the correct interpretation.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem to be clear to me whether auto-formatted code (or even generated code from copilot for example) would be classified as AI.
It seems to me the key phrase in that definition is "that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment" - If your code doesn't change its own operation without needing to be redeployed, it's not AI under this definition. If adaptation requires deployment, such as pushing a new version, that's not AI.
I'm not sure what they intended this to apply to. LLM based systems don't change their own operation (at least, not more so than anything with a database).
We'll probably have to wait until they fine someone a zillion dollars to figure out what they actually meant.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's (at least in some cases) malice, not stupidity. By putting cookie banners everywhere and pretending that they are a requirement of the GDPR, the owners of the websites (or of the tracking systems attached to those websites) (1) provide an opportunity for people to say "yes" to tracking they would almost certainly actually prefer not to happen, and (2) inflict an annoyance on people and blame it on the GDPR . The…
You really think American companies are playing that level of 3D chess? I see cookie banners on corporate sites that have no ads.
It is about tracking, not about ads. Ads without tracking require no banners. Non tracking cookies require no banners.
Corporate sites track you and need banner. Ir is intentionally obnoxious so that you click accept all.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law It is a simple law. You can read it in an afternoon. If you still don't understand it 8 years later , it's not the fault of the law. > instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections News flash: humans and their affairs are complicated > all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. Bonus points: who is responsible for the cookie b…
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?
I love hearing pointificarions about unintended consequences from Americans and especially from Americans in tech.
No, being free to abuse others is not a positive feature. Not for tech, not for politics, not for business.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 “gir…
It is more that they are not dumb enough to buy into these kind of manipulative arguments.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#189In the EU, no risk is ever tolerated. They keep creating laws to regulate things, but do they ever measure the actual impact? With so many regulations, it must be hard to move freely. There should also be a system for repealing regulations.
More free then America, unless you are billionaire. I mean, American billionaires are trying to export their form of anti-democraric policies, Russia is trying ro export their own fascism etc.
It is not like it was safe democracy. But, it is still one and one that cares more about own citizens then the rest. Maybe except Canada.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#190Never forget the EU is run by lobbies by design. So usually those scary regulations are not what they seem to be. Here is what happened in most corporations when GDPR came out: - An new Chief Privacy Officer would be appointed, - A series of studies would be conducted by big consulting firms with a review of all processes and data flow across the organisation, - After many meeting they would conclude that a move to t…
It is not true. If you outsource, GDPR applies all the same. And companies had to literally implement changes into their software and literally did.
GDPR applies to data in cloud too.