6 ms·

Europe eyes strict rules for artificial intelligence

CryptoPunk 6y ago
GDPR is already damaging European scientific research production: https://sciencebusiness.net/news/data-protections-rules-harming-eu-leadership-health-research-says-report https://sciencebusiness.net/news/data-protections-rules-harm... >“GDPR rules have stalled or derailed at least 40 cancer studies funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)” >“5,000 international health projects were affected by GDPR requirements in 2019 alone” I suspect this will similarly have significant negative unintended consequences.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Significant negative? Proper consent paper trail is derailment now? Someone unable to handle consent forms should not be anywhere near medicine. Perhaps someone should reevaluate how things are ran. Wild west ended with company towns and literal slaughter. Perhaps that is a good thing to avoid.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    Less scientific research and collaboration being done is a negative consequence irrespective of any positives GDPR produces. And company towns were generally good: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in-defense-of-the-company-town.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in...
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      We haven't seen the worst about company towns because they were regulated away. Do we have to get there before same thing happens with AI, like it did with so many things like: healthcare, products being toxic, people literally dying? By the way, what about military uses? Counterintelligence? Anything goes?
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        There is no evidence to support your belief that company towns were an exploitive institution. It's just another popular myth that persists because it resonates with inherent biases against the rich, and serves certain parties' interests in delegitimizing private property rights.
        AstralStorm 6y ago
        Sure, because Pullman strike, Pinkerton's and strike busting were never a thing. Corporate owned stores with gouged prices, and so on. Oh, and whole towns being sold out in bankruptcies, people forced to move. (Latest example being slow dismantling of Scotia.) All sorts of paternalistic policies. Nowadays the corporations do not have this kind of control because they don't want real estate on this level. The towns were extremely vulnerable to downturn in business, and still are. (Even whole industry sector cities have problems, such as Detroit.) Capitalism itself is based on profit, which is not shared to workers. By definition exploitative, unlike taxes, which are supposed to be redistributed back to populace as services almost in whole, if the government works correctly. (Excluding public sector salaries. Monarchies and dictatorships excluded to a point.)
        CryptoPunk 6y ago
        The Pullman Strike started with violence from the strikers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike >>On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois. Afterward, groups within the crowd became enraged and set fire to nearby buildings and derailed a locomotive.[8] Elsewhere in the western states, sympathy strikers prevented transportation of goods by walking off the job, obstructing railroad tracks, or threatening and attacking strikebreakers. This increased national attention and the demand for federal action. This was destruction of the private company's property and trespassing to violate the shareholders' right to freedom of movement across the US. This is only justifiable if you accept the victimhood ideology, which sanctifies any worker, and grants them an unlimited right to commit any action in support of their demands. It completely rejects the principle of free association, and the free market, in favor of assigning moral superiority to individuals based on their level of wealth. And what's wrong with strike busting? Strike busting means hiring replacement workers to cross the picket line. They hired the Pinkertons to PROTECT the workers from the violent picketers, who would regularly assault, and sometimes murder, strikebreakers. >>Capitalism itself is based on profit, which is not shared to workers. By definition exploitative Profit is the investor's compensation for their investment. The investors owes the worker what they commit to paying them in their employment contract - nothing more. It's not exploitation when a worker freely agrees to work for a person, and that person profits from the enterprise that they hired them to work in. You're claiming that you can take a job based on employment terms that were disclosed to you, and then because the employer didn't share any profit that they never promised to share in the employment agreement, cry victim, and demand their private property. This is just a narrative used by cheats to rob people of property that they are in no way entitled to. The workers get paid wages, as promised. A worker is able to save their wages after expenses, and then start their own company, and earn profit on their capital. The incentive to invest capital, into new machinery, leads to productivity growth, which leads to wage growth. That is the process that made the US the most productive country in the world by 1890, with people from Europe migrating en masse to try to enjoy the much higher hourly wages it offers.
gnur 6y ago
Is this about the AI or about the use of regular technology that could hurt citizens? Facial recognition and pattern recognition both seem like tech that isn't necessarily AI but are mentioned in the article. If it's about AI, where is the line? Does reinforcement learning count? What about deep learning? Neural networks? 5 clever if statements?
- Deukhoofd 6y ago
  > Social scoring systems, such as those launched in China that track the trustworthiness of people and businesses, are classified as "contravening the Union values" and are going to be banned. > The proposal also wants to prohibit AI systems that cause harm to people by manipulating their behavior, opinions or decisions; exploit or target people's vulnerabilities; and for mass surveillance. > many technologies currently in use in Europe today, such as algorithms used to scan CVs, make creditworthiness assessments, hand out social security benefits or asylum and visa applications, or help judges make decisions, would be labeled as "high risk," and would be subject to extra scrutiny. > One of the Commission’s requirements in the draft are that data sets do not “incorporate any intentional or unintentional biases” which may lead to discrimination.
  - patates 6y ago
    > algorithms used to scan CVs so "5 clever if statements" (which most CV parsers are, if that wasn't clear) too are subject to extra scrutiny depending on application being labeled high risk or not. I'm not sure how to feel about this. I feel it's good intentions but marketed wrong. Why not just say, we will evaluate critical software like we evaluate other critical engineering projects/infrastructure? Why mix in AI?
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      What does it mean "like other critical projects"? Do you mean like buildings or lawyers? Certified AI architecture now? Nobody even knows what such process would entail! The biggest hole is that the AI or statistical systems are not explainable. When push comes to shove, their reasoning is a black hole. Any such system, whether ran by people or automatic, is instant corruption and inequity magnet. 5 if statements are explainable and subject to proper scrutiny.
0xfaded 6y ago
Europe is going to need to cut itself off from the rest of the world if it really wants a market with much stricter rules than its global competitors. It already has totally asymmetric relationships with its trading partners, where Europe sells mostly luxury goods which can easily be boycotted. Germany, of all countries, is unwilling to acknowledge a genocide to protect their auto industry. It wont be a total segregation, but it will start to look something like the Amish. A functioning way of life, cottage industries and great donuts, Don't expect any rockets to Mars though.
- bigfudge 6y ago
  Sounds good. Respect for employment standards and the environment with fewer billionaires’ vanity projects. Sign me up.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    These vanity projects hold the potential to massively improve quality of life for people across the world. Look at the Starlink high-speed satellite internet network, and what that can do for internet access. Energy generation could also become massively cleaner and more affordable with advances in reusable rockets, as space-based solar power generation affordable.
    - bigfudge 6y ago
      They could. But there are also large potential benefits from state funded basic science, which all of these startups depend on, incidentally. Musk, Bezos et al are doing cool stuff, but they are basically parasitic on a system which provides the people and conditions in which they can operate.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        That's unrelated to the fact that we are better off having these projects than not. As for being 'parasitic', that goes both ways. Taxes are not a voluntary system, and much of the resources extracted are wasted and/or used to enrich rent-seeking insiders who are close to the government.
djbebs 6y ago
Like with everything else they will carve out exceptions for themselves
La1n 6y ago
Yesterday's discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809535
NalNezumi 6y ago
>The proposal also wants to prohibit AI systems that cause harm to people by manipulating their behavior, opinions or decisions; exploit or target people's vulnerabilities; and for mass surveillance. >But the rules carve out an exception allowing authorities to use the tech if they're fighting serious crime Wow, if I haven't heard this "proposal" format before in dystopian book or real-world cases... I'd say it miss the mark completely considering the problem whatever lax definition of "AI" we use today is that the advancements and benefits seems to be concentrating mostly on big tech. For China, you can add "Big Gov" on that list. And now EU want to add another asterisk in their rule-book allowing big Gov to enter that list. Seems like a poor proposal made to target Sci-fi "Black mirror" rather than reality, and failing while at it.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  The exception should be gone, as it is literally empowering government . We do not have such exception in GDPR, and neither should we for police systems. If the statistical or AI system makes a serious mistake in this area, consequences are even more disastrous. Their usefulness is dubious anyway.
  - krageon 6y ago
    > We do not have such exception in GDPR We do in fact have an exception in the GDPR for specific agencies involved in fighting serious crime. You may look at the specific text for that here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN#d1e2884-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      The agencies have separate privacy regulation concerning their data handling, however. It is more stringent except for consent.
      - krageon 6y ago
        Please don't spread baseless propaganda. We have far too many examples of security agencies not following the "rules" they impose on themselves except when it's convenient. It's in nobody's best interest to believe someone that keeps lying to you.
or_username 6y ago
"But the rules carve out an exception allowing authorities " Rules for thee but not for me.
redthrowaway 6y ago
Europe has long demonstrated that it's uninterested in competing in the economy of the 21st century. This is exactly in keeping with everything else they've done.
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  I think we just don't like the spotlight that much. In the US, the basic approach is to talk about all the great stuff that your company is doing. In Europe, many suppliers are happy to white-label, if you pay for it. So when you read from an international company bragging about "their" new products without mentioning employees, chances are that they just licensed it from an outside contractor. There's lots of small high-tech contracting firms all over Europe. It's just that they don't want the (potentially negative) attention that comes with being famous.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  But why do you care? Is it because suddenly US market has to play by any rules?
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  Alternatively, the US has long demonstrated its unwavering commitment to competition above all collateral costs. I vastly prefer EU-style digital governance to US-style, since the latter always seems to end up in an Orwellian dystopia (that is worse than the other dystopias).
alexgmcm 6y ago
I think it's going to be hard to create regulations for an industry that largely doesn't exist yet, without strangling it at birth. The rules don't really make much sense either: > Social scoring systems, such as those launched in China that track the trustworthiness of people and businesses, are classified as "contravening the Union values" and are going to be banned. Does this mean stuff like Yelp reviews will be banned now? Or is that not "AI" enough to count? Between this and the horrendous anti-GM laws, Europe will struggle to compete in the future. But I guess it'll create jobs for a whole new load of bureaucrats.
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  Since yelp and Amazon reviews are known to be mostly fake anyway, it might be a good idea to stop them. People can just go back to purchasing a testing magazine and reading the tests.
- etripe 6y ago
  The difference between a Yelp review and a government social score is the Yelp score doesn't determine whether you're eligible for loans, jobs, education and so on. > Europe will struggle to compete in the future I'd say it already does, but not because it addresses valid issues through regulation or introduces excess regulation for invalid use cases. One reason it does is regulatory capture, stifling competition to already established companies. It shares this aspect with the US. Another is a cultural difference with the US, Japan or China in terms of general ambition/entrepreneurship. The European dream for most seems to be "get big enough so I can cash out", not "let's take over the world". Yet another is that Europe, while being unified in many respects, still is a loose federation of a bunch of different cultures and languages, making it more work to appeal to and serve everyone in the internal single market.
nix23 6y ago
Hey Europe, can you please define first what AI is? Otherwise we go the same route like with terrorism (every muslim with a knife running around is a terrorist-attack, but if not muslin "just" a psychologically unstable person)
elias94 6y ago
I think is a good start to define what should and what should not allowed to protect privacy and data of the citizen. Especially after what happened in ex EU country UK with Cambridge Analytica. Social scoring systems, biometric data surveillance, data aggregation for behavior predictions are actual problem with the management of our data. But citizens are not informed enough on whats is happening really fast with AI, smart cities, and always-connected devices. Ps > Eric Schmidt, Google's former chief and chair of the U.S. National Security Commission Fortunately we're not countries that are so money-run that nominated into Security Commission of A.I. a chief of the largest data company in the world. > Europe's strategy won't be successful, as it is "simply not big enough" to compete. Compete with who? Is about preserving the privacy of citizens and not let big corps steal and aggregate all your data for profit without any control
bumbada 6y ago
Technology is going to make it possible to follow all the people all the time. Cheap satellites and drones means a camera or antenna following you every second, whenever you want it or not. Cheap cameras and AI means you are tracked in the subway, and on the street, like in London, Beijing or Shanghai. Your physical movements, your pace and your stance will be recorded so they could identify you by your movement alone. Movements will be analyzed for atypicals like they do in China. A city will be recorded from above all the time like the US military does so they could go "backwards" after something happens. In the past living on a city was freedom from being observed all the time by your neighbors like in small villages. In the future it means the opposite because it makes economic sense to put technology in the cities when lots of people will be controlled. This should be regulated and will be regulated because the potential for abuse is tremendous or we will live in dystopia, with freedom and autonomy eradicated.
ivanhoe 6y ago
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to limit (ban?) the tracking of people, instead of focusing on use of AI to data-mine the collected information? And how do we even define AI?

GDPR is already damaging European scientific research production: https://sciencebusiness.net/news/data-protections-rules-harming-eu-leadership-health-research-says-report https://sciencebusiness.net/news/data-protections-rules-harm... >“GDPR rules have stalled or derailed at least 40 cancer studies funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)” >“5,000 international health projects were affected by GDPR requirements in 2019 alone” I suspect this will similarly have significant negative unintended consequences.

AstralStorm 6y ago
Significant negative? Proper consent paper trail is derailment now? Someone unable to handle consent forms should not be anywhere near medicine. Perhaps someone should reevaluate how things are ran. Wild west ended with company towns and literal slaughter. Perhaps that is a good thing to avoid.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  Less scientific research and collaboration being done is a negative consequence irrespective of any positives GDPR produces. And company towns were generally good: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in-defense-of-the-company-town.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in...
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    We haven't seen the worst about company towns because they were regulated away. Do we have to get there before same thing happens with AI, like it did with so many things like: healthcare, products being toxic, people literally dying? By the way, what about military uses? Counterintelligence? Anything goes?
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      There is no evidence to support your belief that company towns were an exploitive institution. It's just another popular myth that persists because it resonates with inherent biases against the rich, and serves certain parties' interests in delegitimizing private property rights.
      - AstralStorm 6y ago
        Sure, because Pullman strike, Pinkerton's and strike busting were never a thing. Corporate owned stores with gouged prices, and so on. Oh, and whole towns being sold out in bankruptcies, people forced to move. (Latest example being slow dismantling of Scotia.) All sorts of paternalistic policies. Nowadays the corporations do not have this kind of control because they don't want real estate on this level. The towns were extremely vulnerable to downturn in business, and still are. (Even whole industry sector cities have problems, such as Detroit.) Capitalism itself is based on profit, which is not shared to workers. By definition exploitative, unlike taxes, which are supposed to be redistributed back to populace as services almost in whole, if the government works correctly. (Excluding public sector salaries. Monarchies and dictatorships excluded to a point.)
        CryptoPunk 6y ago
        The Pullman Strike started with violence from the strikers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike >>On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois. Afterward, groups within the crowd became enraged and set fire to nearby buildings and derailed a locomotive.[8] Elsewhere in the western states, sympathy strikers prevented transportation of goods by walking off the job, obstructing railroad tracks, or threatening and attacking strikebreakers. This increased national attention and the demand for federal action. This was destruction of the private company's property and trespassing to violate the shareholders' right to freedom of movement across the US. This is only justifiable if you accept the victimhood ideology, which sanctifies any worker, and grants them an unlimited right to commit any action in support of their demands. It completely rejects the principle of free association, and the free market, in favor of assigning moral superiority to individuals based on their level of wealth. And what's wrong with strike busting? Strike busting means hiring replacement workers to cross the picket line. They hired the Pinkertons to PROTECT the workers from the violent picketers, who would regularly assault, and sometimes murder, strikebreakers. >>Capitalism itself is based on profit, which is not shared to workers. By definition exploitative Profit is the investor's compensation for their investment. The investors owes the worker what they commit to paying them in their employment contract - nothing more. It's not exploitation when a worker freely agrees to work for a person, and that person profits from the enterprise that they hired them to work in. You're claiming that you can take a job based on employment terms that were disclosed to you, and then because the employer didn't share any profit that they never promised to share in the employment agreement, cry victim, and demand their private property. This is just a narrative used by cheats to rob people of property that they are in no way entitled to. The workers get paid wages, as promised. A worker is able to save their wages after expenses, and then start their own company, and earn profit on their capital. The incentive to invest capital, into new machinery, leads to productivity growth, which leads to wage growth. That is the process that made the US the most productive country in the world by 1890, with people from Europe migrating en masse to try to enjoy the much higher hourly wages it offers.

gnur 6y ago

Is this about the AI or about the use of regular technology that could hurt citizens? Facial recognition and pattern recognition both seem like tech that isn't necessarily AI but are mentioned in the article. If it's about AI, where is the line? Does reinforcement learning count? What about deep learning? Neural networks? 5 clever if statements?

Deukhoofd 6y ago
> Social scoring systems, such as those launched in China that track the trustworthiness of people and businesses, are classified as "contravening the Union values" and are going to be banned. > The proposal also wants to prohibit AI systems that cause harm to people by manipulating their behavior, opinions or decisions; exploit or target people's vulnerabilities; and for mass surveillance. > many technologies currently in use in Europe today, such as algorithms used to scan CVs, make creditworthiness assessments, hand out social security benefits or asylum and visa applications, or help judges make decisions, would be labeled as "high risk," and would be subject to extra scrutiny. > One of the Commission’s requirements in the draft are that data sets do not “incorporate any intentional or unintentional biases” which may lead to discrimination.
- patates 6y ago
  > algorithms used to scan CVs so "5 clever if statements" (which most CV parsers are, if that wasn't clear) too are subject to extra scrutiny depending on application being labeled high risk or not. I'm not sure how to feel about this. I feel it's good intentions but marketed wrong. Why not just say, we will evaluate critical software like we evaluate other critical engineering projects/infrastructure? Why mix in AI?
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    What does it mean "like other critical projects"? Do you mean like buildings or lawyers? Certified AI architecture now? Nobody even knows what such process would entail! The biggest hole is that the AI or statistical systems are not explainable. When push comes to shove, their reasoning is a black hole. Any such system, whether ran by people or automatic, is instant corruption and inequity magnet. 5 if statements are explainable and subject to proper scrutiny.

0xfaded 6y ago

Europe is going to need to cut itself off from the rest of the world if it really wants a market with much stricter rules than its global competitors. It already has totally asymmetric relationships with its trading partners, where Europe sells mostly luxury goods which can easily be boycotted. Germany, of all countries, is unwilling to acknowledge a genocide to protect their auto industry. It wont be a total segregation, but it will start to look something like the Amish. A functioning way of life, cottage industries and great donuts, Don't expect any rockets to Mars though.

bigfudge 6y ago
Sounds good. Respect for employment standards and the environment with fewer billionaires’ vanity projects. Sign me up.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  These vanity projects hold the potential to massively improve quality of life for people across the world. Look at the Starlink high-speed satellite internet network, and what that can do for internet access. Energy generation could also become massively cleaner and more affordable with advances in reusable rockets, as space-based solar power generation affordable.
  - bigfudge 6y ago
    They could. But there are also large potential benefits from state funded basic science, which all of these startups depend on, incidentally. Musk, Bezos et al are doing cool stuff, but they are basically parasitic on a system which provides the people and conditions in which they can operate.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      That's unrelated to the fact that we are better off having these projects than not. As for being 'parasitic', that goes both ways. Taxes are not a voluntary system, and much of the resources extracted are wasted and/or used to enrich rent-seeking insiders who are close to the government.

djbebs 6y ago

Like with everything else they will carve out exceptions for themselves

La1n 6y ago

Yesterday's discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26809535

NalNezumi 6y ago

>The proposal also wants to prohibit AI systems that cause harm to people by manipulating their behavior, opinions or decisions; exploit or target people's vulnerabilities; and for mass surveillance. >But the rules carve out an exception allowing authorities to use the tech if they're fighting serious crime Wow, if I haven't heard this "proposal" format before in dystopian book or real-world cases... I'd say it miss the mark completely considering the problem whatever lax definition of "AI" we use today is that the advancements and benefits seems to be concentrating mostly on big tech. For China, you can add "Big Gov" on that list. And now EU want to add another asterisk in their rule-book allowing big Gov to enter that list. Seems like a poor proposal made to target Sci-fi "Black mirror" rather than reality, and failing while at it.

AstralStorm 6y ago
The exception should be gone, as it is literally empowering government . We do not have such exception in GDPR, and neither should we for police systems. If the statistical or AI system makes a serious mistake in this area, consequences are even more disastrous. Their usefulness is dubious anyway.
- krageon 6y ago
  > We do not have such exception in GDPR We do in fact have an exception in the GDPR for specific agencies involved in fighting serious crime. You may look at the specific text for that here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN#d1e2884-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    The agencies have separate privacy regulation concerning their data handling, however. It is more stringent except for consent.
    - krageon 6y ago
      Please don't spread baseless propaganda. We have far too many examples of security agencies not following the "rules" they impose on themselves except when it's convenient. It's in nobody's best interest to believe someone that keeps lying to you.

or_username 6y ago

"But the rules carve out an exception allowing authorities " Rules for thee but not for me.

redthrowaway 6y ago

Europe has long demonstrated that it's uninterested in competing in the economy of the 21st century. This is exactly in keeping with everything else they've done.

fxtentacle 6y ago
I think we just don't like the spotlight that much. In the US, the basic approach is to talk about all the great stuff that your company is doing. In Europe, many suppliers are happy to white-label, if you pay for it. So when you read from an international company bragging about "their" new products without mentioning employees, chances are that they just licensed it from an outside contractor. There's lots of small high-tech contracting firms all over Europe. It's just that they don't want the (potentially negative) attention that comes with being famous.
AstralStorm 6y ago
But why do you care? Is it because suddenly US market has to play by any rules?
selfhoster11 6y ago
Alternatively, the US has long demonstrated its unwavering commitment to competition above all collateral costs. I vastly prefer EU-style digital governance to US-style, since the latter always seems to end up in an Orwellian dystopia (that is worse than the other dystopias).

alexgmcm 6y ago

I think it's going to be hard to create regulations for an industry that largely doesn't exist yet, without strangling it at birth. The rules don't really make much sense either: > Social scoring systems, such as those launched in China that track the trustworthiness of people and businesses, are classified as "contravening the Union values" and are going to be banned. Does this mean stuff like Yelp reviews will be banned now? Or is that not "AI" enough to count? Between this and the horrendous anti-GM laws, Europe will struggle to compete in the future. But I guess it'll create jobs for a whole new load of bureaucrats.

fxtentacle 6y ago
Since yelp and Amazon reviews are known to be mostly fake anyway, it might be a good idea to stop them. People can just go back to purchasing a testing magazine and reading the tests.
etripe 6y ago
The difference between a Yelp review and a government social score is the Yelp score doesn't determine whether you're eligible for loans, jobs, education and so on. > Europe will struggle to compete in the future I'd say it already does, but not because it addresses valid issues through regulation or introduces excess regulation for invalid use cases. One reason it does is regulatory capture, stifling competition to already established companies. It shares this aspect with the US. Another is a cultural difference with the US, Japan or China in terms of general ambition/entrepreneurship. The European dream for most seems to be "get big enough so I can cash out", not "let's take over the world". Yet another is that Europe, while being unified in many respects, still is a loose federation of a bunch of different cultures and languages, making it more work to appeal to and serve everyone in the internal single market.

nix23 6y ago

Hey Europe, can you please define first what AI is? Otherwise we go the same route like with terrorism (every muslim with a knife running around is a terrorist-attack, but if not muslin "just" a psychologically unstable person)

elias94 6y ago

I think is a good start to define what should and what should not allowed to protect privacy and data of the citizen. Especially after what happened in ex EU country UK with Cambridge Analytica. Social scoring systems, biometric data surveillance, data aggregation for behavior predictions are actual problem with the management of our data. But citizens are not informed enough on whats is happening really fast with AI, smart cities, and always-connected devices. Ps > Eric Schmidt, Google's former chief and chair of the U.S. National Security Commission Fortunately we're not countries that are so money-run that nominated into Security Commission of A.I. a chief of the largest data company in the world. > Europe's strategy won't be successful, as it is "simply not big enough" to compete. Compete with who? Is about preserving the privacy of citizens and not let big corps steal and aggregate all your data for profit without any control

bumbada 6y ago

Technology is going to make it possible to follow all the people all the time. Cheap satellites and drones means a camera or antenna following you every second, whenever you want it or not. Cheap cameras and AI means you are tracked in the subway, and on the street, like in London, Beijing or Shanghai. Your physical movements, your pace and your stance will be recorded so they could identify you by your movement alone. Movements will be analyzed for atypicals like they do in China. A city will be recorded from above all the time like the US military does so they could go "backwards" after something happens. In the past living on a city was freedom from being observed all the time by your neighbors like in small villages. In the future it means the opposite because it makes economic sense to put technology in the cities when lots of people will be controlled. This should be regulated and will be regulated because the potential for abuse is tremendous or we will live in dystopia, with freedom and autonomy eradicated.

ivanhoe 6y ago

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to limit (ban?) the tracking of people, instead of focusing on use of AI to data-mine the collected information? And how do we even define AI?