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

EU Artificial Intelligence Act

artificialintelligenceact.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 129 posts

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#71

Post by astrange »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #11

Article 10 requires that > all training data be "relevant, representative, free of errors and complete." This is especially interesting to me with regard to something like ChatGPT. As we know, ChatGPT occasionally gives factually incorrect information. Does this mean that, in its current form, it would be illegal in EU? We know that Google is currently blocking access to Bard in EU. Will ChatGPT be forced to follow s…

This seems very limiting; I can read it as banning adversarial training since that introduces "errors".

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#73

Post by kortilla »

jdiez17 wrote: post #63

For anyone who is jumping to the comments to complain about how more rules from the EU is going to make innovation difficult, I highly recommend you to read the summary presentation: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AI-Presentati... Basically, as I understand it, it divides AI systems (in the broadest sense Machine Learning sense) into risk categories: unacceptable risk (prohibited), high risk, medium/o…

How is recruiting higher risk than deepfakes?

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#74

Post by kortilla »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #70
IAmGraydon wrote: post #54

I wonder if all those calling ChatGPT and the like “AI” when it’s nothing of the sort regret doing so now. AI is a scary word for certain groups, while machine learning (which is what this is) isn’t. Now you have a bunch of Luddites with pitchforks looking for a witch to burn. What this act will do is severely stunt the European economy compared to the rest of the world, which will be racing ahead (as long as countri…

I really don't agree with this take. Consider, for example, GDPR. Its implementation in Europe essentially forced compliance worldwide (with some smaller companies choosing to just not support users in the EU). And that's a good thing. It's a large enough market that it can and should lead the way in sensible protections. This isn't about luddites looking to burn witches. There are very sensible and immediate risks t…

Yes, cookie banners are widely regarded as very good.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#75

Post by mrtksn »

rad_gruchalski wrote: post #68
mrtksn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, my impression is that this is written by someone who doesn't understand how law works and making hyperbolic assumptions through cherrypicking. I recall a similar panic and outrage when GDPR was introduced, claiming that it will bankrupt startups and small projects etc. The EU stuff is usually against large corporations who pose systematic risks. Think about how TikTok makes the US freak out about China…

> Europol doesn't knock on your door when you train a model on data that doesn't meet the requirements. This is probably designed to make countries introduce laws which will hold Google/OpenAI etc. accountable for their services so they can't just shrug and say "ouppsy, it's not our fault the AI did it". Your use of “probably” is quite telling. Probably, as in, maybe not, maybe yes, who knows. As the act is phrased t…

I say probably because I'm not lawyer and that's not how EU works. People appear to be extracting drama, just like with the GDPR.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#76

Post by permo-w »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #54

I wonder if all those calling ChatGPT and the like “AI” when it’s nothing of the sort regret doing so now. AI is a scary word for certain groups, while machine learning (which is what this is) isn’t. Now you have a bunch of Luddites with pitchforks looking for a witch to burn. What this act will do is severely stunt the European economy compared to the rest of the world, which will be racing ahead (as long as countri…

when you call something “public action” people—in general—are all for it, but when you call it “government regulation” suddenly people start to get worried. when you say something is “literally” true, the literal and inflexible among us get annoyed when you don’t actually mean literally. words have fluid meaning and unusual connotations and if you can’t accept this you’re in trouble

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#77

Post by alwayseasy »

kortilla wrote: post #73
jdiez17 wrote: post #63

For anyone who is jumping to the comments to complain about how more rules from the EU is going to make innovation difficult, I highly recommend you to read the summary presentation: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AI-Presentati... Basically, as I understand it, it divides AI systems (in the broadest sense Machine Learning sense) into risk categories: unacceptable risk (prohibited), high risk, medium/o…

How is recruiting higher risk than deepfakes?

As in a deepfake customer service rep. Not a deepfake President of the United States declaring he's leaving NATO.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#78

Post by jdiez17 »

kortilla wrote: post #74
alfalfasprout wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't agree with this take. Consider, for example, GDPR. Its implementation in Europe essentially forced compliance worldwide (with some smaller companies choosing to just not support users in the EU). And that's a good thing. It's a large enough market that it can and should lead the way in sensible protections. This isn't about luddites looking to burn witches. There are very sensible and immediate risks t…

Yes, cookie banners are widely regarded as very good.

1) cookie banners are unrelated to the GDPR. 2) implementations of cookie banners that don’t allow users to reject cookies as easily as accepting them are illegal. 3) it is widely regarded as good that companies are obligated to disclose which third parties they are sharing your data with.

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#79

Post by soVeryTired »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #54

I wonder if all those calling ChatGPT and the like “AI” when it’s nothing of the sort regret doing so now. AI is a scary word for certain groups, while machine learning (which is what this is) isn’t. Now you have a bunch of Luddites with pitchforks looking for a witch to burn. What this act will do is severely stunt the European economy compared to the rest of the world, which will be racing ahead (as long as countri…

ChatGPT is most certainly AI: all of machine learning is a subset of the field of AI, as is much of symbolic logic and Bayesian inference. It's a massive and wide-ranging academic discipline.

Maybe you're thinking of "AGI", which is a term that appeared in the late 90's to make the distinction between the expert systems of the time and machines that could think like a human?

Re: EU Artificial Intelligence Act

#80

Post by alwayseasy »

kortilla wrote: post #74
alfalfasprout wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't agree with this take. Consider, for example, GDPR. Its implementation in Europe essentially forced compliance worldwide (with some smaller companies choosing to just not support users in the EU). And that's a good thing. It's a large enough market that it can and should lead the way in sensible protections. This isn't about luddites looking to burn witches. There are very sensible and immediate risks t…

Yes, cookie banners are widely regarded as very good.

Yes, GDPR was all about cookie banners. Quality contribution and argument.
Post reply on HN