Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

wolfhf.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 298 posts

Re: The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

#101

Post by kumi111 »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #54
hackeraccount wrote: post #18

The people writing these regulations don't know what the problems of the future are. The problems of the present are tricky because every problem has a constituency (if it didn't it wouldn't be a problem.). The EU is trying to get around this by acting quickly before constituencies can develop. This will make no one happy - it's like my wife telling me that a car's going to hit me if I walk out the front door so she'…

Laws can change, but if hard damage is done, there is usually nothing you can do about. AI at the moment is moving fast and unreasonable, we already have first waves of victims. Putting a lid on it, and slowing it down seems reasonable, even if it won't be a perfect solution. Interesting part is, this is pretty similar to the situation in 2020, when the pandemia started. Nobody knew exactly what's coming and to navig…

Honestly, until it doesn't have victims it's just a good thing. About Pandemia, it wasn't uncertain, as it was clear threat, driven by survivability.

Re: The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

#102

Post by aqme28 »

neximo64 wrote: post #27
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not neutering, it's pest control

I'm assuming you're typing this with the comfort of some kind of blink or webkit based web browser, made by said pests

What do blink or webkit have to do with their comment? Regulations like this are designed to weed out scammers and charlatans and make the market better for everyone, hence "pest control." Think Theranos and the FDA.

Re: The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

#103

Post by guy98238710 »

The problem is still the same as it was with the cookie law: Should we regulate capability or intent? Regulation by capability is easy to specify in the law, but it cripples useful technology as much as predatory technology and thus ends up being just a legal manifestation of technophobia, hindering overall progress. Regulation by intent/purpose or actual harm (as opposed to potential harm) is a much better option in my opinion.

The other troubling aspect of this is that it's not going to be proportional, but then hard-edged law is a broader problem.

Re: The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

#104

Post by lvl102 »

hef19898 wrote: post #82
lvl102 wrote: post #53

I quite frankly don’t care what EU does. They’ve not been innovating at all there. They took a bunch of Chinese money and now they’re doing everything they can to harm US tech firms…while the US is de facto defending them with own tax money in Ukraine. I cannot wait for EUZ to fail.

If those poor, under-priviledged US tech just a helping hand in defending themselves against those evil, democratic governments... Communism it is! /s On a more serious note, you are aware of the fact that a lot of the material and money Ukraine is gettong comes from European NATO countries and the EU? It is almost like an, whats the word again, alliance supporting Ukraine instead of a single country.

Is it an alliance when EU led by Germany funded Putin regime for the past two decades?

Interesting.

By the way, more than 85% of the funding is coming from the US.

My point really is that even if EU regulations against US big techs are well-intentioned, they’re effectively doing the work for China. I don’t understand what the Chinese have done for the EU. US, on the other hand, have spilled blood to defend the continent.

Re: The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

#105

Post by localplume »

aerhardt wrote: post #61
endisneigh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With AI in particular there are quasi-existential risks lol, there really are not. It's hilarious to see the upper echelons of many government's unironically believing this. they should definitely keep an eye on the development, but as of yet it is not even close to an existential risk.

Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell and other AI leaders are warning us that there are existential risks, if only due to the inevitable creation of autonomous murder machines by the military (Hinton and Russell are both worried about things beyond that, by the way). I’ll take their word for it and not only on the basis of their authority - they have very well put arguments. OpenAI is also playing it safe to some extent,…

[dead]

Re: The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

#106

Post by endisneigh »

aerhardt wrote: post #61
endisneigh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With AI in particular there are quasi-existential risks lol, there really are not. It's hilarious to see the upper echelons of many government's unironically believing this. they should definitely keep an eye on the development, but as of yet it is not even close to an existential risk.

Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell and other AI leaders are warning us that there are existential risks, if only due to the inevitable creation of autonomous murder machines by the military (Hinton and Russell are both worried about things beyond that, by the way). I’ll take their word for it and not only on the basis of their authority - they have very well put arguments. OpenAI is also playing it safe to some extent,…

> At any rate their actions don’t align with your discourse.

Sure they do. You can still use GPT-4 now. If GPT-4 was actually an existantial risk they would have shut it down.

Re: The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

#108

Post by hef19898 »

konschubert wrote: post #90
PoignardAzur wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The effect is going to be that all the innovation happens elsewhere, big AI companies will develop outside Europe. Why though? Like, most of the requirements listed in the AI act seem extremely reasonable and low-overhead, if not seriously meek. Given the immense budgets AI labs can call upon, why would "having to fill a form that says you made sure the AI wasn't racist" be a disqualifying factor?

Let’s see how much effort the compliance is. Just having to know about it is a burden for a small startup.

It propably is, based on how many of those small, VC backed start-ups, complain about, I don't know, the burden of properly declaring taxes, paying social security for their properly registered employees and so on.

Re: The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

#109

Post by aqme28 »

I'm seeing lots of comments from fellow software engineers that seem to boil down to "all software regulation is bad" and I'd like to know where that's coming from, or if it's just a minority of the more libertarian-minded among us.

Regulation can of course be a problem, but it can also do a lot of good to protect consumers. Do people feel this way about the FDA, the FAA, etc?

Re: The EU AI act is coming, this time for real probably

#110

Post by hef19898 »

aqme28 wrote: post #89
konschubert wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect is going to be that all the innovation happens elsewhere, big AI companies will develop outside Europe. And Europeans will only get to benefit as consumers, not as makers of AI. And the EU will take that as a reason to regulate even harder and then also somehow end up giving a bunch of money to its telcos. EDIT: My point is that regulation doesn’t just prevent “bad products”. The compliance overhead also p…

Would you say the same things about FDA regulations? As a programmer who used to work on medical devices, these sound pretty similar like the FDA regulations we dealt with. The goal isn't to stifle innovation, it's to keep scammers and crooks out of the market and make things better for everyone. The EU doesn't want another Thalidomide, and the US shouldn't want another Theranos.

Sometimes it feels like allowing scammers and crooks is kind of the goal, isn't it?
Post reply on HN