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

331–340 of 424 posts

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

#331

Post by kenjackson »

ImageXav wrote: post #223
johndhi wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why? Shouldn't those same use cases all be banned regardless of what tech is used to build them?

Not necessarily. Interpretability of a system used to make decisions is more important in some contexts than others. For example, a black box AI used to make judiciary decisions would completely remove transparency from a system that requires careful oversight. It seems to me that the intent of the legislation is to avoid such cases from popping up, so that people can contest decisions made that would have a material…

Is a black box AI system less transparent than 12 jurors? It would seem anytime the system is human judgement, an AI system would be as transparent (or nearly so).

It would seem accountable would only be higher in systems where humans were not part of the decision making process.

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

#332

Post by cccbbbaaa »

cmenge wrote: post #306
sdefresne wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 explic…

> 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.

In addition to the other answers, I want to point out that recital 49 says that it is possible under legitimate interest (6(1)f).

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

#333

Post by caseyy »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #239
caseyy wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the laws in civil law countries that practice legal literalism are not open to interpretation. Eastern Europe, much of which is a part of the EU, is quite literalist. The understanding is that interpreting laws leads to bias, partiality, and injustice; while following the letter of the law equally in each situation is the most just approach.

I don't believe that's even possible — I'd love to see an example. How do you define anything 100% literally, 100% unambiguously? You'd have to include the entire language in your definition for a start, and keep that constantly updated.

Lithuanian laws are a good example. They are extremely verbose compared to most common law countries.

I lived in Lithuania for a while and at the time, there was a big national debate about how “family” should be defined in laws — what people it can and can’t include.

So yes — a lot of emphasis is put on verbose definitions in literalist legal texts. And very very verbose explanations of many edge cases, too,

I know first hand it will be very hard to read Lithuanian legal texts for someone who is not a native speaker of the language, and even for natives it’s a challenge. So you could instead google “literalist legal systems”, and I believe you’ll find at least some examples/more context in English somewhere.

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

#334

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

theptip wrote: post #89

Seems like a mostly reasonable list of things to not let AI do without better safety evals. > AI that tries to infer people’s emotions at work or school I wonder how broadly this will be construed. For example if an agent uses CoT and they needs emotional state as part of that, can it be used in a work or school setting at all?

A difficulty I have with customer service folk is that usually I'm just trying to report a bug. I'm not upset. Please stop trying to give me coupons. I'm not trying to cancel my account I just want to help your engineers fix this bug (and later on, I want to see that it has actually gone away).

If I must intact with an AI for this, I'd prefer that it infer my emotions correctly.

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

#335

Post by _joel »

huijzer wrote: post #330
miohtama wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here > The main burden falls on SMEs, which experienced an average decline in profits of 8.5 percent. In the IT sector, profits of small firms fell by 12.5 percent on average. Large firms, too, are affected, with profits declining by 7.9 percent on average. Curiously, large firms in the IT sector saw the smallest decline in profits, of “only” 4.6 percent. Specifically, the authors find “no significant impacts on larg…

That is typically the problem with regulations. It’s usually easier for large companies to comply. It’s called regulatory caption.

> It’s called regulatory caption.

Regulatory Capture, no?

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

#336

Post by vixen99 »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #240
DocTomoe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU in a nutshell: You can't have nice things, but on the bright side Google/Apple/Facebook won't know what you had for dinner. Now give us your whole financial transaction and travel history, so we can share it with the US, a hostile country, citizen!

The USA in a nutshell: We elected a President who tried to lead an armed insurrection but we'll never press criminal charges because we elected him President again. Sorry, but anything the EU has ever done pales in comparison with that.

You're right, no competition. Let's face it, your President is a loser who can't even manage a simple insurrection; no proper planning I guess. Fortunately not much bloodshed though the defending side did manage to shoot dead one unarmed female ‘warrior’.

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

#337

Post by csunbird »

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…

The financial transactions are also shared by the both sides, EU can also request data from US, as clearly stated in the document.

Both document clearly define the uses cases that are applicable for the data sharing, and the second document linked by you also explicitly states that US has to put same effort to provide same capabilities to EU as well.

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

#338

Post by fxtentacle »

miohtama wrote: post #315
tw04 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

The problem is that the GDPR has been largely a failure protecting citizens from corporations, but it has hurt everyone else. - Nothing has changed in Facebook and Google data collection practices, who with other bug corps account for > 90% of data collection - Many mid tier competitors lost market share, focusing power to Google - EU small software companies pay estimated extra 400 EUR/year to satisfy GDPR complianc…

"Nothing has changed in Facebook and Google data collection practices"

https://noyb.eu/en

Facebook and Google got sued, paid fines, and changed their behavior. I can do an easy export of all of my FB and G data, thanks to the GDPR.

"EU small software companies pay estimated extra 400 EUR/year to satisfy GDPR compliance"

WTF? no! I work with several small companies and it's super easy to just NOT store anyone's birthday (why would you need that for e-commerce?) and to anonymize IPs (Google provides a plugin for GA). And, basically, that's it. Right now, I can't even find an example of how the GDPR has created any costs. It's more like people changed their behavior and procedures once GDPR was announced and that's "good enough" to comply.

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

#339

Post by scarface_74 »

troupo wrote: post #308
scarface_74 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

You make an “informed choice” when you create a Facebook account, give Facebook your name, date of birth, your relationship status and who you are in a relationship with, your sexual orientation, when you check in to where you have been, when you click on and buy from advertisers, when you join a Facebook group, when you tell it who your friends are…

Should I go on? At each point you made an affirmative choice about giving Facebook your information.

> 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?

That hasn’t been the case since 2018.

https://martech.org/facebooks-removal-of-third-party-targeti...

With ATT, Facebook doesn’t collect data from third party apps at least on iOS if you opt out. It’s cost Facebook billions of dollars

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/04/23/appl...

> 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?

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/14/17236072/facebook-mark-zuckerb...

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

#340

Post by scarface_74 »

troupo wrote: post #312
scarface_74 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ever…

> They made no such announcement after the GDPR. And yet they make no move against Apple, and they are fighting EU in courts. Hence long term . > There isn’t one, you know because of the way the entire internet works, the server is going to always have your IP address. Having my IP address is totally fine under GDPR. What is not fine under my GDPR is to use this IP address (or other data) for, say, indefinite trackin…

> And yet they make no move against Apple, and they are fighting EU in courts. Hence long term.

What “move” could they do against Apple?

> So you managed to give me a non-answer based on your complete ignorance of what GDPR is about.

You asked me how do I avoid it? I do it by being an intelligent adult who can make my own choices

Post reply on HN