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

301–310 of 424 posts

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

#301

Post by throwawaymobule »

sporkydistance wrote: post #114
daedrdev wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its quite clear gdpr has indeed lead to lower investment and delayed or cancelled products in Europe

GDPR is one of the best pieces of legislation to come out of the EU this century. It is the utter bane if "move fast and break things", and I'm so glad to have it. I will never understand the submissive disposition of Americans to billionaires who sell them out. They are all about being rugged Cow Boys while smashing systems that foster their own well-being. It's like their pathology to be independent makes them shoo…

You can still move fast and break things, just treat PII like explosive radioactive waste while you're doing it.

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

#302

Post by scarface_74 »

troupo wrote: post #219
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 doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology. So, the companies that implement these cookie banners are entirely without blame, right? So what is your solution? Reminder: GDPR is general data protection regulation. It doesn't deal with cookies at all. It deals with tracking, collecting and keeping of user data. Doesn't matter if it's on the internet, in…

Meta announced in their earnings report that ATT caused a drop in revenue after it went to effect.

They made no such announcement after the GDPR.

What’s my solution? There isn’t one, you know because of the way the entire internet works, the server is going to always have your IP address. For instance, neither Overcast or Apple’s podcast app actively track you or have a third party ad SDK [1]. But since they and every other real podcast player GET both the RSS feed and audio directly from the hosting provider, the hosting provider can do dynamic ad insertion based on your location by correlating it to your IP address.

What I personally do avoid is not use ad supported apps because I find them janky. On my computer at least, I use the ChatGPT plug in for Chrome and it’s now my default search engine. I pay for ChatGPT and the paid version has had built in search for years.

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

#303

Post by throwawaymobule »

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.

Oncehub removed tracking cookies from some of their meeting invite pages in the EU and stopped showing a banner, because they thought it looked offputting.

They got a few support tickets from people who thought they were still tracking, but just removed the banner.

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

#304

Post by throwawaymobule »

hcfman wrote: post #46
mhitza wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer if Minority Report remains a work of fiction, or at least not possible in the EU.

These laws will not be applied to the government

Is there an explicit carveout? The GDPR has been used against governments.

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

#305

Post by Filligree »

scottcha wrote: post #159
gamedever wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no more predicting the weather with sensors?

I have a project which uses weather info to predict avalanche risk. Reading the articles its hard for me to understand whether this would apply or not but my feeling is it might (If I ever need to run this in the EU I would talk to a lawyer). https://openavalancheproject.org

As it should; people would use it to make life-or-death decisions, so that application is high-risk.

We already have ways to predict avalanche risk that are well understood and explainable. There should be a high threshold on replacing that.

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

#306

Post by cmenge »

sdefresne wrote: post #294
mimsee wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are IP addresses considered PII or not? I remember there being multiple conflicting conclusions on that

It looks like IP addresses are considered PII by GDPR: https://gdpr.eu/eu-gdpr-personal-data/ They are explicitly listed as example of PII.

So in essence, it disallows logging IP address for any purpose, be it security, debugging, rate-limiting etc. because you can't give consent in advance for this, and no other sentence in Art. 6.1 applies.

Moreover, to reason about this, one also needs to take into account Art 6.2 which means there might be an additional 27 laws you need to find and understand.

Note, however, that recital 30 which you quoted is explicitly NOT referenced by Art. 6, at least according to this inofficial site: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/

This particular case might be solved through hashing, but then there are only 4.2bn IPs so easy to try out all hashes. Or maybe it's only OK with IPv6?

I find this vague or at least hard to reconcile with technical everyday reality, and doing it well can take enormous amounts of time and money that are not spent on advancing anything of value.

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

#307

Post by cmenge »

kakadu wrote: post #254
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.

Me and my euro mates are not interested in this kid of "innovation". The "business investors" and "innovators" can take this kind of business elsewhere. This kind of talk where regulators are assaulted by free marketeers and freedom fighters is unacceptable here. Let us not misinterpret business people as "innovators", if what they do is not net positive for the society, they do not belong here.

I'm not sure where "here" is and who you think you speak for, but as a European, I am strictly against regulation, in particular vague regulation made by non-elected EU bureaucrats. And no, freedom of speech and a discussion about the pros and cons is also not "unacceptable". It is part of the democratic process.

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

#308

Post by troupo »

scarface_74 wrote: post #298
troupo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because no other place thinks that their citizens are too dumb to make informed choices. In case of Facebook (or tracking generally) you had no chance to make an informed choice. You are just tracked, and your data is sold to hundreds of "partners" with no possibility to say "no" > Just like right now, HN knows my email address and my comment history and where I access this site from. And that is fine. You'd know t…

Facebook doesn’t sell your data. Why would they? Having your data is their competitive advantage. They sell access to you based on the data they have.

> Facebook doesn’t sell your data.

A distinction without meaning. Here's your original statement: "no other place thinks that their citizens are too dumb to make informed choices."

Questions:

At which point do you make informed choice about the data that Facebook collects on you?

At which point do you make informed choice about Facebook tracking you across the internet, even on websites that do not belong to Facebook, and through third parties that Facebook doesn't own?

At which point do you make an informed choice to let Facebook use any and all data it has on you to train Facebook's AI?

Bonus questions:

At which point did Facebook actually start give users at least some information on the data they collect and letting them do an informed choice?

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

#309

Post by tzs »

Muromec wrote: post #270
anothernewdude wrote: post #182

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." 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.

If the mortgage application evaluation system is deterministic so that the same input always produces the same output then it is easy to answer "Why was my application rejected?".

Just rerun the application with higher income until you get a pass. Then tell the person their application was rejected because income was not at least whatever that passing income amount was.

Maybe also vary some other inputs to see if it is possible to get a pass without raising income as much, and add to the explanation that they could lower the income needed by say getting a higher credit score or lowering your outstanding debt or not changing jobs as often or whatever.

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

#310

Post by tw04 »

2rsf wrote: post #280
frantzmiccoli wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a lawyer, only an engineer starting to assess our AI models. Your comparison to GDPR seems to be correct in a way, both are quite vague and wide. The implementation of GDPR is still unclear in certain situations and it was even worse when it was launched, the EU AI act have very little references to work with and except for very obvious area it is still a lot of a guesswork

When a law is “vague” in that it intentionally tries to be overly broad in protecting the average citizen from corporations, that’s a good thing. GDPR is very much meant to scare the facebooks of the world whose default modus operandi is: your privacy means nothing, I have a revenue number to hit and I don’t care if it ruins your life in the future.

I WANT it to be difficult for AI companies to steal other people’s hard work just like I WANT Facebook to have to spend millions of dollars on lawyers to make sure whatever data they’re collecting and sharing about me doesn’t violate my rights.

Post reply on HN