Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 393 posts

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#381

Post by skissane »

Ekaros wrote: post #310
endless1234 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, amount of credit cards & the total available credit limit is used as a negative signal when applying for a loan. But I think you'd have to have some completely silly amount for it to _really_ affect the outcome. You can easily show that you've not used the cards, for example. If you have 10 credit cards which you use constantly, it would affect your ability to get a loan. To me this makes sense, but of course,…

10 cards, with average of 3000 limit. Would mean you could take a 30000 more loans at high interest rates very quickly. It is not about having used and paid them, but capability to get loans beyond what you can manage very quickly.

It turns into a bit of a pointless ritual though - “I need a mortgage, I’m going to cancel cards I don’t use and slash my credit limits to maximise my borrowing power” - but no sooner have I bought the property, I will apply to increase them again, and they are unlikely to say “no”-even if the credit card is issued by the same bank as the mortgage. Or at least, that’s my personal experience in Australia

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#382

Post by XCSme »

exodust wrote: post #240
shagie wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which then continues... > Preferences cookies — Also known as “functionality cookies,” these cookies allow a website to remember choices you have made in the past, like what language you prefer, what region you would like weather reports for, or what your user name and password are so you can automatically log in.

and then continues... > When people complain about the privacy risks presented by cookies, they are generally speaking about third-party, persistent, marketing cookies. Nothing is helped or solved by insisting first party "site preferences" cookies need consent. There's obviously room for interpretation in regards to what is a "strictly necessary cookie" when it comes to site preferences, account tokens etc.

I agree, most problem with privacy across the web is the cross-site tracking, and the ability to track a user across their entire browsing activity, not the fact that each website individually knows what the user did on their own website.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#383

Post by [deleted] »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #344
IMTDb wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, GET request not only aren't idempotent but they also affect the party that is read. Who came up with that lovely system ? I gave it roughly 15 seconds of thought and came come up with multiple ways this design fucks up people lives.

A hard-pull is not a GET; it's a POST. The semantics are "this person is actively seeking credit, and we are considering whether to extend it to them". The system regards the extent of credit-seeking behavior, and changes to its pattern, as a factor that affects the credit profile. That's not prima facie unreasonable. If you have someone who suddenly starts applying for lots of personal loans (for example), that's pr…

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#384

Post by refurb »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #216
schrodinger wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly don’t love the system, but the difference is “checking credit score in order to take more credit (eg a loan or credit card)” (hard) vs “checking credit score for my own knowledge” (soft). This distinction feels reasonable to me.

How is it reasonable? Anyone checking your credit score already knows that you're applying for new credit, because you're applying for new credit with them . Dinging your score over that only punishes you for soliciting credit offers from multiple lenders at once so you can choose the best terms. Which ought to be an antitrust violation.

I dont think its unreasonable for one’s credit score to get dinged if half a dozen lenders check their score - that means the consumer went through the initial stages of trying to get multiple loans.

But more importantly the ding is maybe 10 points which is pretty much irrelevant to the “buckets” that define credit worthiness (>800, 700-800, etc).

Plus individual lenders can look at the report themselves and make their own determination.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#385

Post by bigDinosaur »

sokoloff wrote: post #301
bigDinosaur wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Black box' doesn't mean 'numbers in a computer', it means 'nobody can explain to me precisely why I was rejected'. A score calculated from an obvious formula is fine (regulations permitting) since you (or a regulator or court or the institution) can establish precisely why you were rejected. A black box system is one in which this cannot be established by any person. This is obviously bad for both legal and moral re…

By that definition, hiring and dating appear to be black boxes.

In both of those you can receive plausible explanations from anyone honest or introspective enough. If you think that all decisions are actually black box emotions that can't be introspected or something then yes, they would be total black boxes, and I suppose the goal would be to minimise that in any system we build that has to discriminate.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#386

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dogma1138 wrote: post #338
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can file a lawsuit 'this bank does not give me loan because I am not white' and check. You can inspect the excell formula in the computer. It does not matter who personally made that decisi9n, the bank is operating this code and paid someone to write it. With 'AI' there is no way to know.

No, what you are entitled in the EU is to have the decision reviewed by a human, I fail to see how an AI changes that.

No what?

Let's imagine my bank is sexist, the code literally says "if WOMAN, Reject'

You can sue my bank for discrimination, and in process of discovery you can request information and documents from the bank, including the code / formulas.

If you have a solid argument, let's say my bank never approved a mortgage for a woman, the judge will grant your request. You, or someone appointed on your behalf, will look at the code / excel formula, see that it's discriminatory by design, and you can request massive punitive fines, because this demonstrates contempt for the law.

Now let's say I instruct my developers to create a neural network that is as convoluted as possible but is unlikely to approves mortgage for a woman. That can be easily done. There will be no proof that we ever did this on purpose, and even proving that it is discriminatory will be challenging. At best, my bank will get a slap on the wrist.

That is why they are banning AI from some areas of life.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#387

Post by cbozeman »

anigbrowl wrote: post #369
cbozeman wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> equitable outcomes There's your problem right there. Soviet Russia ought to have shown everyone in Europe how well "equitable outcomes" work out. You'll never achieve equitable outcomes until you also achieve equitable input. Good luck with that.

Oh for heaven's sake. You seem to think any sort of policy choice balancing the interests of companies and consumers or maximizing accessibility of technology (like requiring USB-C ports) is Communism. Go poop on your own lawn if that's what you want to do.

No, this is your hang up, not mine.

You cannot have equitable outcomes, ever. Every single time it's ever been tried it's failed, and the reason you can't have them is because the planet is an ever-changing dynamic system.

> You seem to think any sort of policy choice balancing the interests of companies and consumers or maximizing accessibility of technology (like requiring USB-C ports) is Communism.

I do prefer to let the market decide, but the market's pretty much sold on USB-C. Apple wants to dominate everything and everyone - there's your lauded Communism for you, but I'm sure you'll proclaim, "That's not real Communism! I could do it better!" - so they're opposed to USB-C.

Lemme guess, did you type this on an iPhone, or a MacBook? Since we're going to jump to ridiculous conclusions... Why do you hate black children so much? You must hate them... you're using technology that requires minerals that warlords force black children to mine! If you were really a believer in Communism, you'd buy a Fairphone and no laptop at all!

See how ridiculous it sounds when you assume? There's a reason the adage goes, "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#388

Post by AnthonyMouse »

chipsa wrote: post #368
flir wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with making manufacture and possession illegal?

How well did the war on booze go? How well is the war on drugs going?

And to be more specific, possession and home production are difficult to detect, so enforcement will be ineffective or highly invasive or both. Victimless crime laws erode citizens' respect for the law and government respect for citizens' privacy. That's what's wrong with them.

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#389

Post by ethbr0 »

warrenronsiek wrote: post #356
ethbr0 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with black boxes is that they beg parallel construction theories. I.e. "We don't approve loans to {ethnic majority} on purpose. We only use our models, which only rely on historical data." -> No proof, no case, no problem The point of any AI law should be to put the onus on the model executor to explain how their model doesn't violate existing law. You can use any model you want, but you can't point to it…

So ML systems are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent? Requiring the claimant have some evidence might not be a perfect legal regime, but the converse is a de-facto ban on innovation. Can a human _prove_ that their decisions are made without bias? No. Are we going to hold them to the same standard proposed here for an AI? Also no. In practice, rules like the one proposed here just enshrine legacy decision…

A fair point.

What would you say of requiring training data and hyperparameter archiving for subsequent legal review?

Re: ChatGPT broke the EU plan to regulate AI

#390

Post by joenot443 »

lm28469 wrote: post #309
joenot443 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of people, myself included, who are aware of how much data big tech has already cultivated on us and don’t give a damn if at this point BBC or Mike’s Bike Blog get in on the action too. Really we just wanted to read our article and not be interrupted, so we can go back to what matters more: anything not on the computer. I’ve never felt protected or assisted by the cookie banners, just annoyed and incon…

Well good things laws aren't based on your feelings. I also hate putting my seatbelt on and I'd like yo enjoy real life instead of spending so much time clicking the damn belt With the 0.1s it takes to click on a banner I'm sure you're fine. Most people probably visit less than 50 different websites per month, so at most that would be 50s per months, minus the banners you already clicked on, for which your browser al…

Having been in two car accidents, if I neglected to wear seatbelts, I'd be dead. If I neglected to click Deny on every cookie popup, big tech will have very slightly more data about me. Your equivalence of the two tells me all I need to know about the amount of time you've spent thinking about this topic.

And for the record, if it really takes less than 100ms to read and clear interstitials, I'm more impressed with your button clicking skills than anything. Have you tried Osu?

Post reply on HN