Some of the unacceptable activities include: AI used for social scoring (e.g., building risk profiles based on a person’s behavior) - Oh, so insurance, and credit score is banned now? And background checks. AI that manipulates a person’s decisions subliminally or deceptively. - Oh, so no more ads? AI that exploits vulnerabilities like age, disability, or socioeconomic status. - Oh, are we banning facebook now? AI tha…
I fail to see where you stand based on your line by line commentary. Are we not supposed to be against these obvious negatives? Regulation against undesired outcomes needs to start somewhere. Do you believe we should not regulate, simply because we already do some of the things that seem to fall under these individual buckets?
AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
281–290 of 424 posts
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#282I am not expert but there seems to be an overlap in the article between 'AI' and well ... just software, or signal processing: - AI that collects “real time” biometric data in public places for the purposes of law enforcement. - AI that creates — or expands — facial recognition databases by scraping images online or from security cameras. - AI that uses biometrics to infer a person’s characteristics - AI that collect…
From the laws text: For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: (1) ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that c…
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#283Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem to be clear to me whether auto-formatted code (or even generated code from copilot for example) would be classified as AI.
It seems to me the key phrase in that definition is "that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment" - If your code doesn't change its own operation without needing to be redeployed, it's not AI under this definition. If adaptation requires deployment, such as pushing a new version, that's not AI.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the laws text: For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: (1) ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that c…
> and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment So if an AI can't change its weights after deployment, it's not really an AI? That doesn't make sense. As for the other criteria, they're so vague I think a thermostat might apply.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#286I am not expert but there seems to be an overlap in the article between 'AI' and well ... just software, or signal processing: - AI that collects “real time” biometric data in public places for the purposes of law enforcement. - AI that creates — or expands — facial recognition databases by scraping images online or from security cameras. - AI that uses biometrics to infer a person’s characteristics - AI that collect…
Unfortunately yes, the article is a simplification, in part because the AI act delegates some regulation to existing other acts. So to know the full picture of AI regulation one needs to look at the combination of multiple texts. The precise language on high risk is here [1], but some enumerations are placed in the annex, which (!!!) can be amended by the commission, if I am not completely mistaken. So this is very m…
Just joking, but I think it is a funny parallel. Also because of it being probably solely human made rules.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#287I am not expert but there seems to be an overlap in the article between 'AI' and well ... just software, or signal processing: - AI that collects “real time” biometric data in public places for the purposes of law enforcement. - AI that creates — or expands — facial recognition databases by scraping images online or from security cameras. - AI that uses biometrics to infer a person’s characteristics - AI that collect…
Have been having a lot of laughs about all the things we call AI nowadays. Now it’s becoming less funny. To me it’s just generative AI, LLMs, media generation. But I see the CNN folks suddenly getting “AI” attention. Anything deep learning really. It’s pretty weird. Even our old batch processing, SLURM based clusters with GPU nodes are now “AI Factories”.
That's not what AI is.
Artificial Intelligence has decades of use in academia. Even a script which plays Tic Tac Toe is AI. LLMs have advanced the field profoundly and gained widespread use. But that doesn't mean that a Tic Tac Toe bot is no longer AI.
When a term passes to the mainstream people manufacture their own idea of what it means. This has happened to the term "hacker". But that doesn't mean decades of AI papers are wrong because the public uses a different definition.
It's similar to the professional vs the public understanding of the term "prop" in movie making. People were criticizing Alec Baldwin for using a real gun on the set of Rust instead of a "prop" gun. But as movie professionals explained, a real gun is a prop gun. Prop in theater/movies just means property. It's anything that's used in the production. Prop guns can be plastic replicas, real guns which have been disabled, or actually firing guns. Just because the public thinks "prop" means "fake", doesn't mean movie makers have to change their terms.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#288I think it’s more likely that companies would adhere to EU regulations and use the same model everywhere or implement some kind of filter.
Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#289Seems like a mostly reasonable list of things to not let AI do without better safety evals. > AI that tries to infer people’s emotions at work or school I wonder how broadly this will be construed. For example if an agent uses CoT and they needs emotional state as part of that, can it be used in a work or school setting at all?
I would imagine that such a tool to infer emotional states would be most useful for autistic people who are as I can attest, somewhat handicapped upon that front. Maybe that will get challenged as disability discrimination by some Autistic group. Which would be interesting. As with most things, there are rules, and exceptions to those rules - no shoe fits everyone, though forcing people to wear the wrong shoe size, c…
The regulation explicitly provides an exception for medical reasons:
Article 5:
1. The following AI practices shall be prohibited:
[...]
(f) the placing on the market, the putting into service for this specific purpose, or the use of AI systems to infer emotions of a natural person in the areas of workplace and education institutions, except where the use of the AI system is intended to be put in place or into the market for medical or safety reasons;Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a lawyer, not versed in US and EU Law, but ... I read (part) of the regulation. https://outofthecomfortzone.frantzmiccoli.com/thoughts/2024/... and here is my shameless plug.
Not a lawyer, only an engineer starting to assess our AI models. Your comparison to GDPR seems to be correct in a way, both are quite vague and wide. The implementation of GDPR is still unclear in certain situations and it was even worse when it was launched, the EU AI act have very little references to work with and except for very obvious area it is still a lot of a guesswork
How is the gdpr vague?