121–130 of 298 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laws can be iterated on. Uncertainty, red tape and legal fees all seem like worth-while brakes on a potentially dangerous industry. Better to be safe than sorry.
> Laws can be iterated on. For Americans, this concept seems to be almost alien given the (at least from an European POV) more or less constant gridlock between House, Senate, Presidency and whatever the 50 states make out of that regarding enforcement. Or, to put it differently, they prefer the Wild West and barely self-regulated markets because they have completely lost any trust in government to create and moderni…
I always feel that the EU protects the people, while others seem to care about profits only.
Just read through the comments on this thread. Most people only care that EU "fall behind" the US, no matter the societal cost.
The implication that there is only one way to organize control of AI tech is patently false. We already know that you can have at least i) a state controlled system (China) and ii) an oligopolistic corporate controlled system (US). There are many other plausible ways and the EU must simply create the conditions for these to develop.
Legislation that has real teeth and vision can do this. This is possible even within existing corporate and monetary systems. Even the (controversial) Friedman doctrine about corporation's sole aim is seeking profit is that they must operate with the moral and legal sandbox that society creates.
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…
? Do you think there’s some kind of karmic point scoring system that you win by being the first one to build horrible unethical dystopian AI models? Or are you just complaining you won’t be able to horrifically exploit people using them to make lots of money? …because, sure, red tape is bad, but is it ultimately that terrible not being a allowed to be super villain? “But America has super villains! …! We’re being lef…
What if an AI research company doesn't want to be a supervillain or do bad things but they (or their investors) decide it's safer to just do the research in a jurisdiction where they face less risk of being subjected to regulatory burden especially during the early exploratory stage. Surely they'll care about abiding to the rules of one of the major world's markets, but they'll so it after they have a mature product.
At least that's how I interpreted GP's comment. EU will eventually get the product that confirms to the safety specifications that we all agree they should, but it will be a foreign product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could make the converse statement about thalidomide, which USA avoided while others suffered severe problems. Regulation isn’t a silver bullet, and it’s particularly challenging to regulate AI because bits flow faster than atoms
There's also the opioid epidemic and amphetamine epidemic. They're pretty hard to justify in my opinion. Not that other countries don't have issues, but it's less common in democracies that that these things are pushed onto people by the govt through lobbying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, GDPR seems to be working all right. Care to share any facts in support of your statements? AI Act's required audits by TÜV and like (somewhat similar to UL in North America) are going to have pretty straighforward "response on the ground".
you seem to imply that enforcing legislation means its "working". this is obviously a pre-requisite. legislation that is not enforced is a joke. but as clearly stated in my comment, this is fighting the old model, not building a new one.
I think it's more of a problem with companies who are fighting to keep the old model (thus, asking for consent where it's not needed just in case they want to do something privacy-disrespectful with it in the future – you can totally deny consent and keep using the service) and consumers not understanding this (and thus, not voting with their feet). But I see GDPR enforcement every day (I donate to https://noyb.eu/en and recommend you to do the same if possible), people fighting non-free consent etc. – I expect in a few more years the landscape will be better understood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This feels like (yet another) extension of copyright. Whilst I'm not sure I completely disagree with you, I want people to acknowledge that copyright is not the natural state of the universe. Prior to (I think) 1790 there was no copyright and human beings managed minor things like, you know, the renaissance and stuff like that. Copyright was invented and enforced and the results have been a mixed bag. It seems to suf…
> it's about the net benefit to society and we should be very careful what we wish for. Seems like we have a classic trolly problem. On one track, compensating copyright holders is required for LLMs, and it's going to be very expensive to acquire all of this copyrighted info, meaning only the biggest companies can afford to do it. On the other track, compensating copyright holders is not required, LLMs (led by big te…
Whilst history tends to make me suspect the former, the recent leaked Google memo gave me pause for thought. AI is already out there and already can be trained on consumer hardware. It's ever so slightly possible that big tech won't be able to horde the benefits this time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, like food safety regulations, other places still won't abide. It's not like "other places still will allow abuse of their citizens" is a great argument for us to as well. Safety regulations exist in every major industry, and sometimes it slows some progress for the sake of individuals. This isn't a bad thing.
I don't know why people compare software regulation to the regulation of physical things that do obvious harm like food regulations.
> While the AI Act’s references to copyright issues in generative AI are still very vague and only stress how much of a grey area it is, requiring providers of large models to be more transparent about their sources seems not a bad thing as such. As many aspects of the act it will be seen how this works out in practice. If my license prohibits use of my work for ai training, or requires that any modified code include…
This feels like (yet another) extension of copyright. Whilst I'm not sure I completely disagree with you, I want people to acknowledge that copyright is not the natural state of the universe. Prior to (I think) 1790 there was no copyright and human beings managed minor things like, you know, the renaissance and stuff like that. Copyright was invented and enforced and the results have been a mixed bag. It seems to suf…
Curious if the introduction of copyright is what led to an explosion of products and innovation. Suddenly people were given an incentive to monetize their ideas. I doubt the renaissance happened due to a lack of copyright. I think it's more due to social, political and health circumstances rather than the lack of protection of one's work. We, in Europe, suffered from disease, famine, war, to the point where we reached the conclusion that enough is enough - we need rules to the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This would lead to a win win setup. Artists, developers, writers, lawyers and so on would need compensation for training content - one time or ongoing - leading to higher quality models, job growth and a superior ai product over all. I have been told information should be free, though.
According to terms and conditions. Ip is not information, it’s work. Pay for it or dont use it. I decide the terms of my own output not you, and certainly not a corporation that resells it and threatens me with unemployment.
Actually - the government decides the terms of your output by passing laws. Your legal right to your content is that which the law allows. If copyright legislation was revoked tomorrow you'd be howling into the void.