3 ms·

? Do you think there’s some kind of karmic point scoring system that you win by being the first one to build horrible unethical dystopian AI models? Or are yo

? Do you think there’s some kind of karmic point scoring system that you win by being the first one to build horrible unethical dystopian AI models? Or are you just complaining you won’t be able to horrifically exploit people using them to make lots of money? …because, sure, red tape is bad, but is it ultimately that terrible not being a allowed to be super villain? “But America has super villains! …! We’re being left behind…” Ok… um. Yeah… I’m ok with that. Please don’t try to be a super villain. These laws don’t seem nearly as outrageous as you make them out to be.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
>Or are you just complaining you won’t be able to horrifically exploit people using them to make lots of money? Having watched this new brand of "AI" capitalists behave, that's exactly what they want to do with it
dragonelite 3y ago
Well you need patents and those patents will be created and registered in the US or China this way. Kind of like how EU car manufacturers have been sleeping on the EV movement. Now they have to source their parts from Chinese manufacturers. So wealth is leaking(patent costs etc) out of Europe and the continent will have less wealth in total over time. Especially now that the cheap Russian energy they had access too is going to their manufacturing rival China and it will also boost Indian development manufacturing. Brussels is doing everything in their power to deindustrialise and make Europe less competitive on the global market..
- nozzlegear 3y ago
  Wouldn’t those patents be for things the EU sees as unethical anyway, and therefore something they shouldn’t build? Or do you mean the rest of the world might use these unethical, super-villainy means to discover and patent totally normal things that they might want to use in the EU as well? > Kind of like how EU car manufacturers have been sleeping on the EV movement. Now they have to source their parts from Chinese manufacturers. Do we know that’s actually because they weren’t able to innovate on their own due to Brussels regulation, or some other factor?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    > Kind of like how EU car manufacturers have been sleeping on the EV movement. Now they have to source their parts from Chinese manufacturers. That's a meme and not true at all. Well, of course a lot of European car makers source from China. As does everyone, everywhere, else.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    The point is that regulation doesn’t just kill unethical startups, it kills all startups.
    - awuji 3y ago
      Why would it kill all startups? The amount of AI startups that are being restricted by this are minimal. Hugging Face isn't going to have to shut down because of this. University research into the best ways to stabilize GAN training isn't going to grind to a standstill. Companies developing weeding robots aren't going to have to turn to symbolic AI for image recognition. Scientists are still going to be able to model landslide risk caused by receding glaciers. Maybe only 1% of AI start ups will be negatively effected by this to the point they would be better off leaving Europe. I am not in a EU country and I would never ever vote to join the EU, but this is one of the better EU legislations. Saying this would "kill all startups" is like saying GDPR will kill all internet business in Europe. Its both alarmist and false.
- mitchdoogle 3y ago
  I don't understand what you're arguing for. You want the EU to throw ethics out the window to encourage business growth?
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    No one us saying throw ethics out, they just see a different risk/reward balance than the EU regulatory bodies
    - dorchadas 3y ago
      One that seems to pretty much throw ethics out the window.
ithkuil 3y ago
That's a position I do share, but let me play the devil's advocate for moment: What if an AI research company doesn't want to be a supervillain or do bad things but they (or their investors) decide it's safer to just do the research in a jurisdiction where they face less risk of being subjected to regulatory burden especially during the early exploratory stage. Surely they'll care about abiding to the rules of one of the major world's markets, but they'll so it after they have a mature product. At least that's how I interpreted GP's comment. EU will eventually get the product that confirms to the safety specifications that we all agree they should, but it will be a foreign product.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Flashback to 1880 Oklahoma, US: "What if an oil research company doesn't want to be a supervillain or do bad things but they (or their investors) decide it's safer to just do the research in a jurisdiction where they face less risk of being subjected to regulatory burden especially during the early exploratory stage." Edit: In case anyone is confused, Post 1880, Land in modern day Oklahoma was considered "unassigned" according to the genocidal government and led to a "Land run" where vigilantes, crooks, scammers and generally unsavory people flooded the area - creating "Boomers" and "Sooners" that were given license to go and steal land from native people's where there were no govt regulations and they just started drilling for oil basically immediately
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    I'm sorry but despite the edit I still fail to get the point you're making.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      The idea of searching for places to do product development that have fewer structural protections for residents is unconscionable. This kind of "externality washing" is talked about as though it were some kind of amoral or practical business matter separate from ethical decisions, rather than an explicit attempt to avoid responsibility for the community that you are moving into. That is to say, organizations look for economic areas that do not have power structures that will scrutinize, push back or otherwise enforce community social standards on said organizations. Capital will always find a downtrodden population to exploit for it's own development BECAUSE they do not have other protections.
andrewmutz 3y ago
I think he is saying that laws have unintended consequences. And a law with good intentions (preventing bad AI outcomes) can have the unintended effect of discouraging entrepreneurs from choosing europe to build a new company. I know plenty of people who avoid the healthcare sector because of HIPAA and avoid handling credit card data because of PCI. PCI and HIPAA are well-intentioned but can scare off innovators.
- alasdair_ 3y ago
  PCI isn’t a law. It’s a standard that the free market decided upon by itself. You’re making the exact opposite point than the one you are intending to make.
  - andrewmutz 3y ago
    I don't think I am. The point is that well-intentioned rules can have the unintended consequence of stifling innovation.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

>Or are you just complaining you won’t be able to horrifically exploit people using them to make lots of money? Having watched this new brand of "AI" capitalists behave, that's exactly what they want to do with it

dragonelite 3y ago

Well you need patents and those patents will be created and registered in the US or China this way. Kind of like how EU car manufacturers have been sleeping on the EV movement. Now they have to source their parts from Chinese manufacturers. So wealth is leaking(patent costs etc) out of Europe and the continent will have less wealth in total over time. Especially now that the cheap Russian energy they had access too is going to their manufacturing rival China and it will also boost Indian development manufacturing. Brussels is doing everything in their power to deindustrialise and make Europe less competitive on the global market..

nozzlegear 3y ago
Wouldn’t those patents be for things the EU sees as unethical anyway, and therefore something they shouldn’t build? Or do you mean the rest of the world might use these unethical, super-villainy means to discover and patent totally normal things that they might want to use in the EU as well? > Kind of like how EU car manufacturers have been sleeping on the EV movement. Now they have to source their parts from Chinese manufacturers. Do we know that’s actually because they weren’t able to innovate on their own due to Brussels regulation, or some other factor?
- hef19898 3y ago
  > Kind of like how EU car manufacturers have been sleeping on the EV movement. Now they have to source their parts from Chinese manufacturers. That's a meme and not true at all. Well, of course a lot of European car makers source from China. As does everyone, everywhere, else.
- konschubert 3y ago
  The point is that regulation doesn’t just kill unethical startups, it kills all startups.
  - awuji 3y ago
    Why would it kill all startups? The amount of AI startups that are being restricted by this are minimal. Hugging Face isn't going to have to shut down because of this. University research into the best ways to stabilize GAN training isn't going to grind to a standstill. Companies developing weeding robots aren't going to have to turn to symbolic AI for image recognition. Scientists are still going to be able to model landslide risk caused by receding glaciers. Maybe only 1% of AI start ups will be negatively effected by this to the point they would be better off leaving Europe. I am not in a EU country and I would never ever vote to join the EU, but this is one of the better EU legislations. Saying this would "kill all startups" is like saying GDPR will kill all internet business in Europe. Its both alarmist and false.
mitchdoogle 3y ago
I don't understand what you're arguing for. You want the EU to throw ethics out the window to encourage business growth?
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  No one us saying throw ethics out, they just see a different risk/reward balance than the EU regulatory bodies
  - dorchadas 3y ago
    One that seems to pretty much throw ethics out the window.

ithkuil 3y ago

That's a position I do share, but let me play the devil's advocate for moment: What if an AI research company doesn't want to be a supervillain or do bad things but they (or their investors) decide it's safer to just do the research in a jurisdiction where they face less risk of being subjected to regulatory burden especially during the early exploratory stage. Surely they'll care about abiding to the rules of one of the major world's markets, but they'll so it after they have a mature product. At least that's how I interpreted GP's comment. EU will eventually get the product that confirms to the safety specifications that we all agree they should, but it will be a foreign product.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Flashback to 1880 Oklahoma, US: "What if an oil research company doesn't want to be a supervillain or do bad things but they (or their investors) decide it's safer to just do the research in a jurisdiction where they face less risk of being subjected to regulatory burden especially during the early exploratory stage." Edit: In case anyone is confused, Post 1880, Land in modern day Oklahoma was considered "unassigned" according to the genocidal government and led to a "Land run" where vigilantes, crooks, scammers and generally unsavory people flooded the area - creating "Boomers" and "Sooners" that were given license to go and steal land from native people's where there were no govt regulations and they just started drilling for oil basically immediately
- ithkuil 3y ago
  I'm sorry but despite the edit I still fail to get the point you're making.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    The idea of searching for places to do product development that have fewer structural protections for residents is unconscionable. This kind of "externality washing" is talked about as though it were some kind of amoral or practical business matter separate from ethical decisions, rather than an explicit attempt to avoid responsibility for the community that you are moving into. That is to say, organizations look for economic areas that do not have power structures that will scrutinize, push back or otherwise enforce community social standards on said organizations. Capital will always find a downtrodden population to exploit for it's own development BECAUSE they do not have other protections.

andrewmutz 3y ago

I think he is saying that laws have unintended consequences. And a law with good intentions (preventing bad AI outcomes) can have the unintended effect of discouraging entrepreneurs from choosing europe to build a new company. I know plenty of people who avoid the healthcare sector because of HIPAA and avoid handling credit card data because of PCI. PCI and HIPAA are well-intentioned but can scare off innovators.

alasdair_ 3y ago
PCI isn’t a law. It’s a standard that the free market decided upon by itself. You’re making the exact opposite point than the one you are intending to make.
- andrewmutz 3y ago
  I don't think I am. The point is that well-intentioned rules can have the unintended consequence of stifling innovation.