5 ms·

The people writing these regulations don't know what the problems of the future are. The problems of the present are tricky because every problem has a constit

The people writing these regulations don't know what the problems of the future are. The problems of the present are tricky because every problem has a constituency (if it didn't it wouldn't be a problem.). The EU is trying to get around this by acting quickly before constituencies can develop. This will make no one happy - it's like my wife telling me that a car's going to hit me if I walk out the front door so she's locking me inside. All I'll know about is that I can't go for a walk. I might hear that the neighbor got hit by a car but I'll also hear that they get to go for walks so to the degree the strategy is successful it's also to the degree that it fails.

smarx007 3y ago
Did you actually read the proposed text of the AI act? I certainly want more oversight over a medical startup or airplane manufacturer doing AI in the essential system components than otherwise. I think adding a high-risk category is a brilliant move.
- jiggywiggy 3y ago
  The problem with this type of regulation is that you need to add huge amount of vagueness in the law to be future proof. Leading to huge amounts of uncertainty for companies, unnecessary red tape and higher legal fees. As well as giving the power to a judge to punish companies if the public sentiment goes negative.
  - sambeau 3y ago
    Laws can be iterated on. Uncertainty, red tape and legal fees all seem like worth-while brakes on a potentially dangerous industry. Better to be safe than sorry.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > Laws can be iterated on. For Americans, this concept seems to be almost alien given the (at least from an European POV) more or less constant gridlock between House, Senate, Presidency and whatever the 50 states make out of that regarding enforcement. Or, to put it differently, they prefer the Wild West and barely self-regulated markets because they have completely lost any trust in government to create and modernize laws - a viewpoint that does make sense given the ridiculous age of key players in Congress. Feinstein is 90 years old, both likely Presidential candidates are over 75, Senators' median age is 65. How can anyone expect these people to even understand modern issues?! I think this is also the cause why so many American companies failed or have massive difficulties entering the European market. They simply cannot think that other countries have governments that actually govern and regulatory agencies that don't take it well if foreign companies try to buy their way out of trouble.
      - letmevoteplease 3y ago
        The design of the American system was always based on a distrust for power. The gridlock is the point. Not my favorite person but Scalia put it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0
        mschuster91 3y ago
        Eventually though it leads to a situation where no one has any trust left in government, which is extremely dangerous from a democracy perspective - it breeds resentment, splintering/secession and people taking the law into their own hands (or to put it bluntly, shooting at everything they deem a threat - including children playing hide-and-seek [1]). That's also the reason why there are so many doomsday preppers in the USA vs. everywhere else on the planet that isn't an active warzone. These people simply don't trust the government to keep them alive in a time of crisis. [1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/09/louisiana-man-shoots-14-year-old-girl-hide-and-seek/70198318007/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/09/louisia...
        zeroonetwothree 3y ago
        the US has more of a culture of self sufficiency. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It also has higher incomes that allow for such types of frivolous spending
        mschuster91 3y ago
        > It also has higher incomes that allow for such types of frivolous spending We have the same net income as the Americans in Europe (ludicrous tech salaries aside), we simply pay collectively with our taxes for stuff that Americans have to pay for on their own, first and foremost healthcare and retirement.
        logicchains 3y ago
        > extremely dangerous from a democracy perspective How is it extremely dangerous? Over a hundred million people died in the 20th century from trusting their government too much, nothing compares to that.
    - dantheman 3y ago
      How's the cookie banner going?
      - smarx007 3y ago
        On its way to the dumpster: https://noyb.eu/en/data-protection-authorities-support-noybs-call-fair-yesno-cookie-banners https://noyb.eu/en/data-protection-authorities-support-noybs... https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-aims-end-cookie-banner-terror-and-issues-more-500-gdpr-complaints https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-aims-end-cookie-banner-terror-and-is... Donate to NOYB if you can.
    - jiggywiggy 3y ago
      It's hard to find the line between better safe then sorry. On the surface level you are right. But look at the cost of medicine development, it has exponentially risen to billions in the last decades, stifling innovation. And although it maybe got a bit safer, it didn't get exponentially safer.
  - smarx007 3y ago
    TÜV certification is the red tape I want. Just how in the North America people respect appliances with UL marking. But regarding the uncertainty, I agree with you. And I guess, it's inevitable given the pace of change and innovation. I am expecting more ISO standards to be created and updated in response to the AI Act, which will limit the uncertainty to some extent.
- eimrine 3y ago
  > Did you actually read the proposed text of the AI act? Are these 140 pages [1] the proposed text? [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/CJ40/DV/2023/05-11/ConsolidatedCA_IMCOLIBE_AI_ACT_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COM...
  - smarx007 3y ago
    I think the last draft is under https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_15698_2022_INIT&qid=1683901623610 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONS... (starting with p. 59, the text before is the rationale memo) and the document you linked are the latest amendments suggested to it.
fstokesman 3y ago
> ...remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces, biometric categorisation systems (e.g. categorizing by gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship status, religion, political orientation) and the use of AI for predictive policing. > AI systems which can influence voters in political campaigns and by use of suggestion systems on very large platforms... > New transparency and risk assessment requirements for providers of (generative) foundation models like GTP. > Clarified exemptions for research. Putting these kinds of restrictions in place is absolutely a good thing. While they might not get everything right, this is a step in the right direction. Our laws and understanding as a society has been lagging behind technological development for decades now. That fact has enabled a large amount of exploitation to take place, which has (in the last decade especially) had a large hand in massively undermining our democracies.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >New transparency and risk assessment requirements for providers of (generative) foundation models like GTP This is absurd. For a relatively small sum in the grand scheme of things, I could rent a few A100s, download a free dataset and train a model like LLaMA 30B, which is comparable to GPT3 (and indeed there already are such efforts popping up). Such a law could potentially make it illegal to upload such a thing if you live in the EU without going through a potentially expensive and bureaucratic process. It will completely stifle AI development the same way requiring people to going through a bunch of paperwork to upload a new library would stifle web development.
PurpleRamen 3y ago
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 navigate it, but everyone tried their best to survive what everyone saw unfolding on global scale.
- kumi111 3y ago
  Honestly, until it doesn't have victims it's just a good thing. About Pandemia, it wasn't uncertain, as it was clear threat, driven by survivability.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  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"?
  - PurpleRamen 3y ago
    Yes, thanks for pointing this out. Corrected it.
carschno 3y ago
> every problem [in the present] has a constituency The internet as a way of distribution is not exactly new, plenty of legislations on various levels have been dealing with that fact for a while, for instance GDPR. "The people writing these regulations" cannot predict the future indeed, but that is obvious. It should not serve as an excuse for doing nothing, though.

smarx007 3y ago

Did you actually read the proposed text of the AI act? I certainly want more oversight over a medical startup or airplane manufacturer doing AI in the essential system components than otherwise. I think adding a high-risk category is a brilliant move.

jiggywiggy 3y ago
The problem with this type of regulation is that you need to add huge amount of vagueness in the law to be future proof. Leading to huge amounts of uncertainty for companies, unnecessary red tape and higher legal fees. As well as giving the power to a judge to punish companies if the public sentiment goes negative.
- sambeau 3y ago
  Laws can be iterated on. Uncertainty, red tape and legal fees all seem like worth-while brakes on a potentially dangerous industry. Better to be safe than sorry.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Laws can be iterated on. For Americans, this concept seems to be almost alien given the (at least from an European POV) more or less constant gridlock between House, Senate, Presidency and whatever the 50 states make out of that regarding enforcement. Or, to put it differently, they prefer the Wild West and barely self-regulated markets because they have completely lost any trust in government to create and modernize laws - a viewpoint that does make sense given the ridiculous age of key players in Congress. Feinstein is 90 years old, both likely Presidential candidates are over 75, Senators' median age is 65. How can anyone expect these people to even understand modern issues?! I think this is also the cause why so many American companies failed or have massive difficulties entering the European market. They simply cannot think that other countries have governments that actually govern and regulatory agencies that don't take it well if foreign companies try to buy their way out of trouble.
    - letmevoteplease 3y ago
      The design of the American system was always based on a distrust for power. The gridlock is the point. Not my favorite person but Scalia put it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        Eventually though it leads to a situation where no one has any trust left in government, which is extremely dangerous from a democracy perspective - it breeds resentment, splintering/secession and people taking the law into their own hands (or to put it bluntly, shooting at everything they deem a threat - including children playing hide-and-seek [1]). That's also the reason why there are so many doomsday preppers in the USA vs. everywhere else on the planet that isn't an active warzone. These people simply don't trust the government to keep them alive in a time of crisis. [1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/09/louisiana-man-shoots-14-year-old-girl-hide-and-seek/70198318007/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/09/louisia...
        zeroonetwothree 3y ago
        the US has more of a culture of self sufficiency. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It also has higher incomes that allow for such types of frivolous spending
        mschuster91 3y ago
        > It also has higher incomes that allow for such types of frivolous spending We have the same net income as the Americans in Europe (ludicrous tech salaries aside), we simply pay collectively with our taxes for stuff that Americans have to pay for on their own, first and foremost healthcare and retirement.
        logicchains 3y ago
        > extremely dangerous from a democracy perspective How is it extremely dangerous? Over a hundred million people died in the 20th century from trusting their government too much, nothing compares to that.
  - dantheman 3y ago
    How's the cookie banner going?
    - smarx007 3y ago
      On its way to the dumpster: https://noyb.eu/en/data-protection-authorities-support-noybs-call-fair-yesno-cookie-banners https://noyb.eu/en/data-protection-authorities-support-noybs... https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-aims-end-cookie-banner-terror-and-issues-more-500-gdpr-complaints https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-aims-end-cookie-banner-terror-and-is... Donate to NOYB if you can.
  - jiggywiggy 3y ago
    It's hard to find the line between better safe then sorry. On the surface level you are right. But look at the cost of medicine development, it has exponentially risen to billions in the last decades, stifling innovation. And although it maybe got a bit safer, it didn't get exponentially safer.
- smarx007 3y ago
  TÜV certification is the red tape I want. Just how in the North America people respect appliances with UL marking. But regarding the uncertainty, I agree with you. And I guess, it's inevitable given the pace of change and innovation. I am expecting more ISO standards to be created and updated in response to the AI Act, which will limit the uncertainty to some extent.
eimrine 3y ago
> Did you actually read the proposed text of the AI act? Are these 140 pages [1] the proposed text? [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/CJ40/DV/2023/05-11/ConsolidatedCA_IMCOLIBE_AI_ACT_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COM...
- smarx007 3y ago
  I think the last draft is under https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_15698_2022_INIT&qid=1683901623610 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONS... (starting with p. 59, the text before is the rationale memo) and the document you linked are the latest amendments suggested to it.

fstokesman 3y ago

> ...remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces, biometric categorisation systems (e.g. categorizing by gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship status, religion, political orientation) and the use of AI for predictive policing. > AI systems which can influence voters in political campaigns and by use of suggestion systems on very large platforms... > New transparency and risk assessment requirements for providers of (generative) foundation models like GTP. > Clarified exemptions for research. Putting these kinds of restrictions in place is absolutely a good thing. While they might not get everything right, this is a step in the right direction. Our laws and understanding as a society has been lagging behind technological development for decades now. That fact has enabled a large amount of exploitation to take place, which has (in the last decade especially) had a large hand in massively undermining our democracies.

logicchains 3y ago
>New transparency and risk assessment requirements for providers of (generative) foundation models like GTP This is absurd. For a relatively small sum in the grand scheme of things, I could rent a few A100s, download a free dataset and train a model like LLaMA 30B, which is comparable to GPT3 (and indeed there already are such efforts popping up). Such a law could potentially make it illegal to upload such a thing if you live in the EU without going through a potentially expensive and bureaucratic process. It will completely stifle AI development the same way requiring people to going through a bunch of paperwork to upload a new library would stifle web development.

PurpleRamen 3y ago

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 navigate it, but everyone tried their best to survive what everyone saw unfolding on global scale.

kumi111 3y ago
Honestly, until it doesn't have victims it's just a good thing. About Pandemia, it wasn't uncertain, as it was clear threat, driven by survivability.
SiempreViernes 3y ago
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"?
- PurpleRamen 3y ago
  Yes, thanks for pointing this out. Corrected it.

carschno 3y ago

> every problem [in the present] has a constituency The internet as a way of distribution is not exactly new, plenty of legislations on various levels have been dealing with that fact for a while, for instance GDPR. "The people writing these regulations" cannot predict the future indeed, but that is obvious. It should not serve as an excuse for doing nothing, though.