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

181–190 of 298 posts

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

#181

Post by renjimen »

konschubert wrote: post #175
renjimen wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Productivity is a narrow metric for the success of society. Without these kinds of regulatory non-productive industries you would likely have fewer and worse social services, such as roads and the police. You would also be exposed to more risks in your daily life, such as pollutants and poisons. In the long term, these industries can allow for safer and more efficient societies.

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

#182

Post by renjimen »

hef19898 wrote: post #138
renjimen wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? I don’t follow the logic. How could regulation in favour of protecting the rights of citizens over corporations be intentionally facilitating scammers?

I meant that being to scam people is an actual goal of people opossing rwgulations like the discussed AI act or GDPR. Or financial regulations, the whole crypto space, last weeks over hyped society saving tech, is built on the assumption financial reulations don't apply to crypto. I am all in favor of reasonable, individual rights protecting regulation. The EU AI act might just be one, as is GDPR.

Ah, sorry. I guess I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying!

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

#183

Post by jiggywiggy »

sambeau wrote: post #39
jiggywiggy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this type of regulation is that you need to add huge amount of vagueness in the law to be future proof. Leading to huge amounts of uncertainty for companies, unnecessary red tape and higher legal fees. As well as giving the power to a judge to punish companies if the public sentiment goes negative.

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.

It's hard to find the line between better safe then sorry.

On the surface level you are right.

But look at the cost of medicine development, it has exponentially risen to billions in the last decades, stifling innovation. And although it maybe got a bit safer, it didn't get exponentially safer.

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

#184

Post by Taywee »

endisneigh wrote: post #168
Taywee wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but gun regulations don't operate under the assumption that guns shoot people on their own. They operate under the understanding that people who do damage can do much more damage with guns than without. Pretending that any of the regulation of guns or AI is done with the understanding that they are anything other than powerful tools that can be used by humans to do profound damage is a strawman argument. We all…

I'm well aware of the distinction. I'm simply saying that it is a fact that guns do not shoot people on their own. Some countries regulate differently, obviously. You also seem to think governments, which are made by the said humans that can do "profound damage", are infallible. At the end of the day you either democratize the access, or you don't. Those who want to break the law will break it either way. All you are…

I don't think governments are infallible, and I didn't argue as such. I don't agree that regulations are inherently bad. If you want to race to the bottom, I can easily pull out some extreme scenario of giving AK-47's to every citizen upon graduating Kindergarten, but it would be a stupid argument based on nothing you've actually said, other than taking your point to the most extreme extent. Please give me the courtesy of not assuming I hold the most unreasonable extension of my argument as well. It only sabotages the conversation.

People driving drunk do profound damage as well. Cars don't kill people on their own. Would you agree with making drunk driving legal again?

When a tool allows a person to do a lot of damage, it should be regulated to prevent bystanders from taking the brunt of other peoples' bad decisions. A race to the bottom doesn't really help anybody.

If you're going to argue that every tool that allows people to do harm should be not regulated at all because the tool isn't anthropomorphized, I'm not sure how we can have a discussion at all about it.

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

#185

Post by smarx007 »

dantheman wrote: post #116
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.

How's the cookie banner going?

On its way to the dumpster:

https://noyb.eu/en/data-protection-authorities-support-noybs...

https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-aims-end-cookie-banner-terror-and-is...

Donate to NOYB if you can.

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

#186

Post by hef19898 »

gumballindie wrote: post #176
anonylizard wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People seem to forget dystopian cyberpunk was a parody and warning, not a playbook or something desirable. But as long as people can pretend to be part of the new, neo-feudlist tecj overlord class they don't seem to care. Until the inevitable, Zorg-like, FAANG / MAGMA layoffs happen and kick them out of the door that is.

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

#187

Post by endisneigh »

Taywee wrote: post #184
endisneigh wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware of the distinction. I'm simply saying that it is a fact that guns do not shoot people on their own. Some countries regulate differently, obviously. You also seem to think governments, which are made by the said humans that can do "profound damage", are infallible. At the end of the day you either democratize the access, or you don't. Those who want to break the law will break it either way. All you are…

I don't think governments are infallible, and I didn't argue as such. I don't agree that regulations are inherently bad. If you want to race to the bottom, I can easily pull out some extreme scenario of giving AK-47's to every citizen upon graduating Kindergarten, but it would be a stupid argument based on nothing you've actually said, other than taking your point to the most extreme extent. Please give me the courte…

> People driving drunk do profound damage as well. Cars don't kill people on their own. Would you agree with making drunk driving legal again?

No, because drunk driving inhibits your ability to operate a vehicle lawfully.

a better example would be using your phone while driving. should this be illegal? it's well documented that using your phone, even if hands-free increases car accidents. should phones be designed to automatically shut off while in a vehicle?

your ak47 example is also just silly. please use better examples to make your point.

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

#188

Post by Taywee »

endisneigh wrote: post #172
DicIfTEx wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

Who banned AI? This discussion is about regulation of AI to reduce its capability for harm, not to ban it outright.

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

#189

Post by renjimen »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #163
renjimen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But software can do obvious harm. This is surely one the most important lessons of the internet era

Yeah it really can’t though. If there’s mercury in the tuna that’s obviously and unequivocally bad. If there’s funny memes supporting the other political party that’s supposed to be equivalent?

We use software to make all kinds of harm preventing and harm causing decisions. Military, medical, social, policing, financial. Pretty much all aspects of life

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

#190

Post by SiempreViernes »

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…

The "self driving" cars have already killed several people, and nobody can object those aren't sold as "modern AI systems" by the companies that produce them.

I guess you meant to say something like "our first wave" rather than "no first wave"?

Post reply on HN