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

191–200 of 298 posts

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

#191

Post by gumballindie »

andybak wrote: post #130
gumballindie wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 If copyright legislation was revoked tomorrow you'd be howling into the void.

What kind of tyranny would allow a handful of corporations to grab my work for free and resell it while making me unemployed? I do want as a citizen to have my work protected, and i equally want that corporations to benefit from it and compensate me if so i wish.

Anti copyright is a bit like communism. What’s the plan? That we all live in one happy commune while the politburo owns everything and we starve in the name of glorious progress? We tried it before and it didnt work.

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

#192

Post by andybak »

gumballindie wrote: post #191
andybak wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 If copyright legislation was revoked tomorrow you'd be howling into the void.

What kind of tyranny would allow a handful of corporations to grab my work for free and resell it while making me unemployed? I do want as a citizen to have my work protected, and i equally want that corporations to benefit from it and compensate me if so i wish. Anti copyright is a bit like communism. What’s the plan? That we all live in one happy commune while the politburo owns everything and we starve in the name…

I'm not anti-copyright as much as "anti-assuming-more-copyright-is-an-unalloyed-good".

> What kind of tyranny would allow a handful of corporations to grab my work for free and resell it while making me unemployed?

Again - a presumption that AI will be owned by big tech - it's already out there and runs on your home PC. And it can't be taken back.

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

#193

Post by zirgs »

nickfromseattle wrote: post #80
andybak wrote: post #63

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…

Open source models are possible if we pick the second option. Lots of innovation in the AI scene is happening thanks to open source models being available to the general public.

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

#194

Post by spacebanana7 »

Taywee wrote: post #67
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…

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.

In the food industry there (generally) isn't a big isn't a big prize or defensive moat for being the first to develop a new product at scale. Especially at the national level.

Many capital intensive internationally traded industries are different. Once overseas competitors have been through a few innovation cycles and sunk tens of billions of dollars into product development it's basically impossible to catch up. Even with government support.

TSMC is the canonical example, but similar principals apply with Amazon and other big tech companies with high infra spending. More subtly, industries with high marketing costs are very hard to penetrate at scale when an incumbent has reached a certain depth. See enterprise software with MSFT or high fashion with LVMH.

As well as losing the opportunity for economical development in a new industry, dependence on overseas imports for critical industries creates geopolitical headaches.

European governments recognised this risk in aerospace a few decades ago, and the Airbus project saved Europe and the world from a Boeing dominated international passenger jet market.

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

#195

Post by PurpleRamen »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #190
PurpleRamen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Yes, thanks for pointing this out. Corrected it.

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

endisneigh wrote: post #100
gumballindie wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't disagree with you, but many people on HN think digital information should be free, just sayin'

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by AndrewKemendo »

wokwokwok wrote: post #86
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…

? 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…

>Or are you just complaining you won’t be able to horrifically exploit people using them to make lots of money?

Having watched this new brand of "AI" capitalists behave, that's exactly what they want to do with it

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

#198

Post by awuji »

konschubert wrote: post #171
nozzlegear wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would it kill all startups?

The amount of AI startups that are being restricted by this are minimal. Hugging Face isn't going to have to shut down because of this. University research into the best ways to stabilize GAN training isn't going to grind to a standstill. Companies developing weeding robots aren't going to have to turn to symbolic AI for image recognition. Scientists are still going to be able to model landslide risk caused by receding glaciers.

Maybe only 1% of AI start ups will be negatively effected by this to the point they would be better off leaving Europe.

I am not in a EU country and I would never ever vote to join the EU, but this is one of the better EU legislations. Saying this would "kill all startups" is like saying GDPR will kill all internet business in Europe. Its both alarmist and false.

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

#199

Post by welshwelsh »

nickfromseattle wrote: post #80
andybak wrote: post #63

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…

I'd choose the second track without hesitation.

Shareholders can consolidate all the wealth they want, as long as they deliver the goods: LLMs that are trained on all of humanity's creative output.

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

#200

Post by AndrewKemendo »

ithkuil wrote: post #124
wokwokwok wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? 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…

That's a position I do share, but let me play the devil's advocate for moment: 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…

Flashback to 1880 Oklahoma, US:

"What if an oil 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."

Edit: In case anyone is confused, Post 1880, Land in modern day Oklahoma was considered "unassigned" according to the genocidal government and led to a "Land run" where vigilantes, crooks, scammers and generally unsavory people flooded the area - creating "Boomers" and "Sooners" that were given license to go and steal land from native people's where there were no govt regulations and they just started drilling for oil basically immediately

Post reply on HN