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

261–270 of 424 posts

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

#261

Post by Ekaros »

thiago_fm wrote: post #242

Love the EU, living here is the best. There are plenty of companies in the EU using and developing AI even with the fact that Americans say we have "heavy regulation", it isn't just in the same ballpark as the US and China, which both have much bigger potential markets and a stronger VC base with of course, more money. The lack of regulations from the US in AI creates a very harsh atmosphere for the population. It's…

Actually thinking what advanced AI could do with say Meta. It could be used to rewrite the content for each user. And not even tell that they are doing it. AI proponents see nothing wrong with it. Why not allow Meta for instance change negative experiences with restaurants to positive ones. Or modify political statements made by some sides...

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

#262

Post by nkmnz »

philipov wrote: post #183
hotstickyballs wrote: post #165

Earlier 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've personally reviewed all 7b parameters of my model and they won't adapt after deployment :)

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

#263

Post by Vecr »

Mistletoe wrote: post #155
hnburnsy wrote: post #128

If AI is outlawed then only outlaws will have AI.

I know you are trying to reference this quote with regard to guns but I think you are actually disproving the point you are trying to make. https://vpc.org/press/states-with-strong-gun-laws-and-lower-... I'll gladly live in a country with no AI at all. Give me Dune post-Butlerian jihad levels of AI outlawing and I'll move there. I strongly believe that myself and all the people living there will be much happier.

And Elon Musk moving to Mars will save him from human extinction.

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

#264

Post by fredoliveira »

DocTomoe wrote: post #250
fredoliveira wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we get some sources that back the narrative for that last sentence?

EU bending backwards to meet US demands to access non-US-related traveller records: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-us-agr... Yes, it only affects airlines that have connections to the US. But if I book Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Tokyo, the PNR will still be sent to the US, for Lufthansa has connections to the US. Yes, there are 'safeguards' in there, to shackle the DHS to be responsible with t…

> Yes, it only affects airlines that have connections to the US. But if I book Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Tokyo, the PNR will still be sent to the US, for Lufthansa has connections to the US.

Any proof of that claim? The agreement specifically mentions flights between the EU and the US, so any departure from that (like the scenario you describe) is unlawful, according to my own understanding.

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

#265

Post by fredoliveira »

DocTomoe wrote: post #251
theyinwhy wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious: What are those nice things Europe cannot have?

For starters, I am still waiting for Apple Intelligence to arrive on my phone. Reason given is "EU legislative concerns". Then there's the nontrivial number of especially local US news sources which now give me a cheerful "451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons" error code. Then there's the outright stupid stuff - like lightbulbs that do not cost 15 euros a piece (to save 'energy'), or drinking straws that do not dissolve…

> For starters, I am still waiting for Apple Intelligence to arrive on my phone. Reason given is "EU legislative concerns".

So the EU should not control where your data is processed? You can't claim in one comment to be bummed about data exchanges between the EU and the US (which you do), and then not understand why there are regulations in place that are slowing down the roll-out of things like Apple Intelligence, for your benefit.

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

#266

Post by frantzmiccoli »

frereubu wrote: post #260

I always sigh when I see these threads on HN because many of the comments (although not all, thankfully) devolve into US / EU name-calling and wild overgeneralisations. I would really love to see a Q&A thread like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42770125 from someone who's actually read the documents, practices law in the area, and also understands the difference between US and EU law.

Not a lawyer, not versed in US and EU Law, but ... I read (part) of the regulation.

https://outofthecomfortzone.frantzmiccoli.com/thoughts/2024/... and here is my shameless plug.

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

#267

Post by frantzmiccoli »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #33

I am not expert but there seems to be an overlap in the article between 'AI' and well ... just software, or signal processing: - AI that collects “real time” biometric data in public places for the purposes of law enforcement. - AI that creates — or expands — facial recognition databases by scraping images online or from security cameras. - AI that uses biometrics to infer a person’s characteristics - AI that collect…

Statistics and old ML are AI in the sense of that regulation.

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

#270

Post by Muromec »

anothernewdude wrote: post #182
btown wrote: post #129

Earlier 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.

If the thinking machine rejects my mortgage application, it should be possible to point out which exact rule triggered the rejection. With rules explicitly set by an operator it's possible. It's also possible to say that the rules in place comply with the law and stay compliant during the operation, for example it doesn't unintentionally guess that I'm having another citizenship based on my surname or postal code.
Post reply on HN