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

171–180 of 298 posts

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

#171

Post by konschubert »

nozzlegear wrote: post #139
dragonelite wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you need patents and those patents will be created and registered in the US or China this way. Kind of like how EU car manufacturers have been sleeping on the EV movement. Now they have to source their parts from Chinese manufacturers. So wealth is leaking(patent costs etc) out of Europe and the continent will have less wealth in total over time. Especially now that the cheap Russian energy they had access too i…

Wouldn’t those patents be for things the EU sees as unethical anyway, and therefore something they shouldn’t build? Or do you mean the rest of the world might use these unethical, super-villainy means to discover and patent totally normal things that they might want to use in the EU as well? > Kind of like how EU car manufacturers have been sleeping on the EV movement. Now they have to source their parts from Chinese…

The point is that regulation doesn’t just kill unethical startups, it kills all startups.

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

#172

Post by endisneigh »

DicIfTEx wrote: post #167
endisneigh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, most software is harmless. There are some scenarios where it could do harm, but ultimately said harm was the product of human usage of the software, not software inherently. There are a few examples such as medical device software and things like train software where honest mistakes can result in human harm. However even with those the issue was that humans made the mistakes. Software development as a discipline…

I don't think you need counterexamples, because your base argument is faulty. Food full of formaldyhde only causes harm as the product of human usage, i.e. someone eating it, regulation aims to make it impossible for such a situation to arise. For a less extreme but no less real example, just look at the regulation of raw milk in much of the world. Elsewhere in the thread you have touched on firearm regulation; it's…

Your example is flawed because the harm is obvious and palpable. Not to mention food in most countries must disclose ingredients that are used. Take alcohol which is known to be poisonous. Do you support its banning: yes or no?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3959903/

Food should be regulated because as you mentioned it is consumed and is a vector for obvious harm. In addition to that due to the fact that food is comprised of chemicals, it is difficult to ascertain the quality of food once prepared without consumption.

Banning AI is like banning books. Useless. Information will spread either way. It'll just do so elsewhere.

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

#173

Post by konschubert »

hef19898 wrote: post #155
konschubert wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not calling to abolish all regulation. But please consider this: How many people’s lives could have been saved if FDA regulations didn’t make medical approvals take 10 years? How many life-saving medications could have been invented if the cost of approval didn’t limit innovation to the biggest companies?

History has those answers, recent history I mean. E.g. Contergan. Medical regulations are written in literal blood and dead people. Really good example for Chesterton's fence.

Maybe we would have a cure for most cancer by now.

You cannot see the damage done by regulation, but it exists.

Regulation is always a trade-off.

It’s not “us vs them”. It’s us vs us.

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

#174

Post by renjimen »

r2vcap wrote: post #76

I don't care what EU countries do to curb their productivity. (I am a Korean national.) However, I am worried that another barrier is being built when considering the case of GDPR. And I hope they don't intervene in other countries as if their thoughts are universal.

The intention is to protect the rights and wellbeing of citizens. It’s short-termism to allow unfettered productivity gains at the expense of the populace.

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

#175

Post by konschubert »

renjimen wrote: post #140
konschubert wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Then it should be factored into the profitability of starting in the AI sector. And just like for tax, there will be new external audit services that lower the costs of these overheads. In a way, these regulations create whole new kinds of industries

These kind of industries add no wealth. They reduce the productivity of the economy.

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

#176

Post by gumballindie »

anonylizard wrote: post #143
gumballindie wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said the same about GDPR and is working fine. If a company crosses me I just request data removal and call it a day. It's all good. I do hate GDPR popups tho.

Yeah, and now where is the privacy respecting European tech giant? Europe has fallen farther and farther behind in tech, every single year, and are now completely crushingly behind in AI. Like the only (continential) European AI company I know of is DeepL, and DeepL will soon be in DeepSh-t if GPT-4 costs go down.

The privacy respecting european tech giant is the citizen. Also there is significant contribution to ai coming from the old world, some of the most brilliant minds are from here. And whats the point in having gazzilionaire corporations with offices surrounded by tents and poverty? Where’s the progress in that?

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

#178

Post by hef19898 »

konschubert wrote: post #173
hef19898 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History has those answers, recent history I mean. E.g. Contergan. Medical regulations are written in literal blood and dead people. Really good example for Chesterton's fence.

Maybe we would have a cure for most cancer by now. You cannot see the damage done by regulation, but it exists. Regulation is always a trade-off. It’s not “us vs them”. It’s us vs us.

Jesus, no idea what to say here... Just one thing: mRNA vaccines, coming out of cancer treatment research, one of the most sucessful companies is actually German, and they use the mountains of cash they made during Covid, partnering with Pfizer on Covid vaccines, to really push the cancer research.

Unregulated medical research is bad, like in really, literall Nazi doctor bad. Shocking it still has to pointed out...

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

#179

Post by konschubert »

Taywee wrote: post #158
konschubert wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not calling to abolish all regulation. But please consider this: How many people’s lives could have been saved if FDA regulations didn’t make medical approvals take 10 years? How many life-saving medications could have been invented if the cost of approval didn’t limit innovation to the biggest companies?

It's as unanswerable a question as "how many lives would have been lost by dangerous medications with long-term side effects that didn't become apparent in the term of testing?" We can't really know whether it was a net good or a net bad because we can't take a look at the reality that didn't happen. What we do know is that there were deadly medications on the market before the FDA. There were medications available o…

This is a very balanced comment, strange that it is getting downvoted.

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

#180

Post by jiggywiggy »

mschuster91 wrote: post #51
sambeau wrote: post #39

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…

Yeah changing and updating laws sucks everywhere. I'm sure some places are worse or better. But most democracies are set up on purpose to frustrate the process.
Post reply on HN