61–70 of 109 posts
It's a good thing - AI is in basically everything, it needs regulation.
By people who never built anything except bureaucracies?
Europe on another money grubbing fishing expedition on US corporations.
GDPR would be enough if money was the aim. Enforcement is pretty thin with that as well, not as if there weren't enough companies out there that can and need to be fined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR would be enough if money was the aim. Enforcement is pretty thin with that as well, not as if there weren't enough companies out there that can and need to be fined.
Enforcement is thin, but every large company operating in the EU pays for legal advice. It's a racket, if you are a large target you will do well to pay for external firms that employ people who personally participated in the establishment of the GDPR regime. This is a tax on the European business - one of many types.
The article only lists US labs, I wonder if that was an oversight. Chinese models are also available to Europeans through API providers. Surely they risk fines too.. right?
And regarding fines, well the track record for EU fines against any big tech companies, US or China, is abysmal. Even if the companies are fined, the fine goes uncollected or is slashed after the big press release.
I am looking as the DSA here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very naive viewpoint that does not understand that superintelligence is a race between the West and China. While the EU is twiddling its thumbs about copyright, it is shooting its own side in the foot during the most important race in human history. The pure absurdity of this is a reflection of how the EU routinely chooses short term safety and good vibes over long term prosperity and success. This mindset…
Yes, that's fair, and particularly so for AI. The best action would be to speak softly and carry a big stick. But ultimately, to avoid the dangers of AI, a control treaty of which the only similar historical example was nuclear weapons, will be needed between the US and China. And perhaps, Europe would be better at negotiating that if it was all three. Meanwhile, legislating to label deepfakes, and evaluating models…
This is a technology that will give the victor control over the future of humanity forever, and the ability to lock out any competitors from reaching the same level of capability.
Do you really think China would sign any agreement here in good faith? It would be hopelessly naive to negotiate a slowdown and assume that China is not lying through their teeth and accelerating internally. The stakes are too high - we would do the same.
The only option is to win the race, because no entity is naively trusting enough to risk losing this race.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enforcement is thin, but every large company operating in the EU pays for legal advice. It's a racket, if you are a large target you will do well to pay for external firms that employ people who personally participated in the establishment of the GDPR regime. This is a tax on the European business - one of many types.
Very large companies already have in-house council or a law firm on retainer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very naive viewpoint that does not understand that superintelligence is a race between the West and China. While the EU is twiddling its thumbs about copyright, it is shooting its own side in the foot during the most important race in human history. The pure absurdity of this is a reflection of how the EU routinely chooses short term safety and good vibes over long term prosperity and success. This mindset…
> the most important race in human history This feels like it needs a lot of asterisks. A race implies someone will win it - how exactly is China winning by making those models freely available? "The West" can use that tech, it's not locked away in some vault.
Obviously China will not release models if they ever get far ahead of the US's best models in capability. You can't seriously think that "free models" will remain the game plan if they take an indisputable lead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If my manager's manager's manager decides, for any number of reasons, to buy a product which is using US-based technology, then I don't reasonably have the option to "vote with my feet", but I do have a fallback called Regulation, which works its way all the way up the chain automatically.
Why would you ever expect that you would have a choice of what products you use at work? You are being paid to work there. And yes, if you feel that strongly, you absolutely do have the option to vote with your feet at any time.
Similar arguments were made to defend Harvey Weinstein.
> And yes, if you feel that strongly, you absolutely do have the option to vote with your feet at any time.
People shouldn’t have to switch jobs because they don’t want to provide Bill Gates with their phone number.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chinese models are open weights, so they can host & finetune them in the EU. Mistral is calling them "European Compute Units". Mistral has pivoted to become a hosting provider of open weight LLMs. "Mistral’s platform will support third-party open models, starting with Z.ai’s GLM-5.2. This and future open models will run on the same infrastructure, regional controls, and service commitments as Mistral models, so c…
Giving open weight models more leeway “feels” right, but it’s a massive self-pwn based on the mother of all back doors. It’s a little bit like saying “sysadmins need work visas and vetting, but this guy works for free, so just give him root and don’t think too hard about it”.
I don't think the current US administration has shown themselves to be less hostile than China...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they don't.
Roughly half of American states have passed extensive internet regulation in the last few years to the point of entire businesses exciting their states, and that's the conservative parts of America. The American public, of various creeds and political orientations is as, if honestly not more skeptical of US tech companies. They simply have no control over their government, which is captured by tech CEOs. The recent a…
But that only explains that Americans want regulation, not that they want EU regulation.
Americans put innovation and result ahead while Europe prefers precaution/fairness first.
There are real costs for Europe in terms of productivity because of this. Take a look at the Draghi report.
Also see European founders relocating and citing regulation as a problem when it comes to access to capital.