18 ms·
EU strikes deal to regulate ChatGPT, AI tech
- helsinkiandrew 3y agohttps://archive.is/qV4xB https://archive.is/qV4xB
- PeterStuer 3y agoAnyone have the text that was agreed upon? Edit: I know the text is not final as it needs more work, but I was hoping for a leaked draft text of amendments that clinched 'the agreement'.
- arlort 3y agoI don't think it's ready yet, from what I read in statements they found a compromise but it still needs to go through some processes to turn the agreed points into legalese (and then the translations) I don't think it'll be voted on this month
- snowpid 3y agoThis month is Christmas. It won't.
- raverbashing 3y agoYeah without the actual agreement (which is still subject to voting, etc) this is an empty discussion This is literally based on one short tweet Edit: this seems to be a (slightly) more substantial press release https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231206IPR15699/artificial-intelligence-act-deal-on-comprehensive-rules-for-trustworthy-ai https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231206IP...
- rightbyte 3y ago"prohibits ... social scoring based on social behaviour or personal characteristics;" Does this outlaw Tinder?
- nunez 3y ago> AI systems that manipulate human behaviour to circumvent their free will; > AI used to exploit the vulnerabilities of people (due to their age, disability, social or economic situation). So basically all social media in their current forms?
- developer93 3y agoAll that don't just have time ordered feeds, or feeds which are highly configurable by the user anyway. I guess mastodon doesn't fall under this category..
- frantzmiccoli 3y agoI haven't found a final version online. I wrote an article / review of the drafts that were available a few months ago. You have the links to the sources. https://outofthecomfortzone.frantzmiccoli.com/thoughts/2023/09/07/eu-ai-act-notes-thoughts-proposed-regulation.html https://outofthecomfortzone.frantzmiccoli.com/thoughts/2023/...
- PeterHolzwarth 3y agoI've heard the phrase "regulating yourself out of the market." Do you feel this applies here?
- diet_jerome 3y agoOf course. I mean this is the eu we're talking about.
- thefz 3y agoHappy not to conduct business with a party if its practice does not reflect my values.
- CamperBob2 3y agoSo the answer is to take that choice away from you?
- thefz 3y agoThe answer is that unbridled capitalism is not what I want.
- logicchains 3y agoWhat about the people in Europe who do want to use those services? Why does what you want trump what they want, especially when them doing what they want has no direct impact on you.
- regularjack 3y agoIf those other people start using tech to automatically recognize my face on CCTV footage, that absolutely has an impact on me. I'm using the CCTV footage example because it's one of the things this regulation forbids.
- robertlagrant 3y agoWe don't have anything anywhere close to unbridled capitalism.
- pipes 3y agoThis all seems premature. So far we have something that can generate text and pictures based on other text and pictures ?
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago> This all seems premature. So far we have something that can generate text and pictures based on other text and pictures ? I think the reasoning is that at one time Social Media was just a few sites where people could share photos and fun articles they'd read - and it turned into a privacy/hate speech/monopoly minefield that no one is sure is completely good for society and now is impossible to control.
- ekianjo 3y agowhy do you have to control anything? Again the government knowing no bounds, but not surprising coming from non-democratic bureaucratic EU
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago> why do you have to control anything? Again the government knowing no bounds Because most countries have laws about discrimination, promoting hate, inciting hatred, meddling with elections etc. There's nothing here that wasn't included as part of the Bletchley declaration about AI safety and signed by just about all the well known AI players including democratically elected governments last month.
- Levitz 3y agoBecause not controlling anything has a LONG history of utter misery and might still lead to borderline human extinction as it is now.
- logicchains 3y agoElites controlling everything is why the couple thousand years prior to the 1900s almost everybody in the world lived in conditions that would be considered abject poverty today.
- danielovichdk 3y agoCan't wait to read the deal. But this should not be very hard to agree on, which pretty much showcases the fuckery going. A fucking no brainer to turn down. Which it seems they not really did but perhaps did a little bit. "The negotiators agreed to allow some live scanning of faces, but with safeguards and exemptions, Breton said. The deal would prohibit biometric scanning that categorizes people by sensitive characteristics, such as political or religious beliefs, sexual orientation or race. Officials said this was one of the most difficult and sensitive issues in the talks."
- rightbyte 3y agoSeems impossible to store photos without recording religious affiliation. Some Jews, Sihks, Muslim women etc wear headwear that is a give away.
- mytailorisrich 3y agoStoring a photo is not the same as "biometric scanning" of that photo to categorise it.
- mitjam 3y agoThe EU has provided a high level overview of the regulatory framework here: [1]. Quite old (2021) but the general idea is probably still valid. I think the idea is sound. The question is whether foundation models will be regulated already as high risk because they could be applied in high risk use cases or if only the use case applications themselves will be regulated. It tends to be more in the direction of "let's regulate the foundation, as well". BTW: Something similar is in the works for regulating software, including open source software with the new "EU Directive for Liability of Defective Products". Here is a discussion: [2]. The rationale behind both seem to be something like: We (software vendors in the EU) rely so heavily on open source software and put just a little bit on top, that it would be too much work for us to ensure compliance of the underlying software for our use case. So, please, dear regulators, regulate the underlying software, as well, even if it is open source, so that the compliance burden is not on us, but on the authors of the underlying software. The compliance industry is happy (new business), the big software vendors are happy (reduced competition from smaller vendors in high-stakes industries), the regulators are happy (fewer vendors to deal with while ensuring the regulation will actually be enforced). /sigh [1]: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory... [2]: https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/interface/2023/open-source-software/oss-and-liability-in-light-of-the-new-product-liability-directive https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/interface/2023/open-source-...
- ur-whale 3y agohttps://archive.is/FMB2W https://archive.is/FMB2W
- ur-whale 3y ago[flagged]
- akie 3y agoLibertarianism and disdain for governing bodies is a trope here on Hacker News, _especially_ if it's the EU.
- zlg_codes 3y agoGovernment bodies have done a fantastic job of torpedoing their reputation on their own. If mine would act like a legitimate fucking ally and spend its money on its people instead of Israel, I'd have more respect for it.
- kitd 3y agoMEPs are elected, Council consists of member states' elected leaders. Only the commissioners aren't elected and they weren't drawing up the legislation. Other than that, good point.
- kylebenzle 3y agoBetween this and the "Digital Rights" nonsense it does seem the EU has lost its way.
- philwelch 3y ago[flagged]
- tfourb 3y agoLiterally every EU institution is legitimized just like National governments: - EU Parliament is elected by citizens - EU commission is selected by national governments and approved by the EU parliament - EU council are the heads of government of the member states
- ur-whale 3y ago
- miohtama 3y agoAFAIK the actual final legislative text is not yet publicly available, so we do not know what was passed. But might change any moment.
- boobsbr 3y agoWhat? How can legislation pass without the public knowing what is in it before it passes?
- dorchadas 3y agoFrom what I understand, it's not passed yet. They've just reached a deal on the amendments that need to be added so it will be passed.
- miohtama 3y agoWe do not know what amendments have been passed, as Germany and other countries were lobbying for more relaxed regulation after every AI company in the EU called them and told them the regulation was going to make them uncompetitive.
- kylebenzle 3y agoThe stupidest of the new rules: 1) AI Act includes bans on biometric systems that identify people based on "sensitive characteristics", such as sexual orientation or race (except for "law enforcement"). (LOL, so an AI isn't "allowed" to tell if a person is black, white or Asian?) 2) It also includes new transparency requirements for all general-purpose AI models and stronger rules for "very powerful" models. ("Yes, because with such 'great power' comes great responsibility).
- ginko 3y ago>LOL, so an AI isn't "allowed" to tell if a person is black, white or Asian? Yes. I don't see what you find so funny about this.
- bequanna 3y agoRace is one of the most important attributes used to describe a person of interest. Sex, race, height, build, hair, last known clothing
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- simion314 3y agoAnd do you need an AI to guess your customer race or sexual preferences ? If is needed for the service (maybe you are a doctor)you just ask. If is illegal for you to ask and use someones race then it should not be legal for you to guess it and then use that guess in your algorithms.
- mytailorisrich 3y agoIf it is illegal to collect and use that information then you don't need to additionally regulate algorithms specifically... And if it is legal to collect and use that information then it seems nonsensical to ban the use of algorithms specifically...
- miohtama 3y ago> By 2022, there were examples that AI was actively harming people. In a Dutch scandal, decisions made by algorithms were linked to families being forcibly separated from their children, while students studying remotely alleged that AI systems discriminated against them based on the color of their skin. These were not AIs but rule-based systems with if elses. The current legislation is bad, because it tries to regulate the technology, not how it is used. Dutch government people should be responsible for the decisions they or their system produces, AI or no AI.
- bannedbybros 3y ago[dead]
- phh 3y ago> The current legislation is bad, because it tries to regulate the technology, not how it is used. That's not what the EU regulation does. As an example, High Risk Machine Translation will be regulated no matter how you do it. The standard underlying the EU's AI Act explicit mention that AI system can be anything from rule-based to machine learning and mention some other AI methods. The regulation is on task/usage not on the technology. Edit: "High Risk" in my example refers to the usage
- miohtama 3y agoThank you for the clarification!
- robertlagrant 3y ago> AI system can be anything from rule-based to machine learning Then why call it AI?
- osullip 3y agoWhy call anything AI? It's become commonly accepted to mean any algorithmic system. It's probably better to use an accepted umbrella term rather than multiple specific scientific ones in this case.
- wintermutestwin 3y ago>Cognitive behavioral manipulation of people from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/202... Aren't the valuations of Google,Facebook et al mostly based on their future capabilities to do exactly this when they feed everyone's data into their AI?
- bondarchuk 3y agoThe EU has a billboard campaign going recently with pro-EU messages and utopian imagery which is also be cognitive behavioural manipulation of people (manipulating their thoughts and behaviour (voting) to be more pro-EU).
- pyuser583 3y agoCould you share some links about this?
- bondarchuk 3y agoSee my comment to FirmwareBurner.
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoDo you have any sources on that? I wouldn't be surprised though, with populism and Euro-skepticism at all time highs.
- bondarchuk 3y agoIt's this one, "you are europe": https://you-are-eu.europa.eu/index_en https://you-are-eu.europa.eu/index_en The images and slogans in the 4 pictures are what I have also seen on billboards.
- admissionsguy 3y ago
- Spiwux 3y agoGreat. Glad to see we're still world leaders at shooting ourselves in the foot. It makes sense to regulate AI use in critical infrastructure and flat out outlaw use of AI to manipulate public opinion, but that's where it should have stopped.
- stevoski 3y agoThey sure do pass a lot of new rules these days about sweeping.
- espe 3y ago> containing the downsides of Silicon Valley’s latest export through which political lense do i have to look in order to put it like this? there is decades of european (continuing the bloc thinking) research and braindrain (and wasted opportunity) going into this.
- ArtTimeInvestor 3y agoAs someone living in Europe, I don't know if I should laugh or cry. The upside: From an investing perspective, the more regulations the EU comes up with, the more US software companies are a safe bet. The downside: Europe missed the internet and now will miss AI. How will that affect quality of life here? Is nobody in the EU bringing up the question why every single European citizen is dependent on US hardware, US software and US services? How we got here and where this will lead to, when software will not only be our "bicycle of the mind" but literally the car that drives us around, the nurse that cares for our health and the craftsman that builds our home?
- tremon 3y agowhy every single European citizen is dependent on US hardware, US software and US services Mostly because US companies keep buying their EU competitors. Nokia, Skype, Spotify, ARM, ASML and countless others all originated in Europe. The ones that remain European are the ones that cannot be bought so easily, like Matrix (UK) or Mastodon (DE).
- golemotron 3y agoThat makes the original point. They are bought by US companies because the US has facilitated tech and capital growth. In another world, the EU would've done better on that and bought US companies.
- gumballindie 3y agoGreat steps in the right direction. Now the EU only needs to ensure property is not stolen by ai companies. Essentially if you cant prove your model has been trained on content you have licensed then selling it should be illegal.
- Spiwux 3y agoGuilty until proven innocent. Very thoughtful take.
- gumballindie 3y agoIt’s called burden of proof. And usually sits with those selling products.
- wizzwizz4 3y agoIn the US, the burden of proof is with the regulators, but there's higher liability than in the EU which is supposed to offset it. That usually applies to safety / fitness for purpose, though, not copyright: I don't think the arguments transfer from one to the other.
- Kiro 3y agoYou're on a forum called Hacker News. Abolish all copyright.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- etothepii 3y ago> Those that pose a systemic risk will need to sign onto a voluntary code of conduct ... How can one need to sign onto a voluntary code of conduct?
- SeanAnderson 3y agohttps://www.theverge.com/2023/12/8/23991850/eu-ai-act-artificial-intelligence-regulation-provisional-deal-law-brussels https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/8/23991850/eu-ai-act-artifi... https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/General-Purpose-AI-and-the-AI-Act.pdf https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022... I was reading through this a couple of evenings ago to try and get up to speed. I find the spirit of the law to be something I broadly approve of -- for example: "There are a number of applications where the use of AI is banned, like scraping facial images from CCTV footage, categorization based on “sensitive characteristics” like race, sexual orientation, religion, or political beliefs, emotion recognition at work or school, or the creation of “social scoring” systems." These things seem broadly good to keep at bay. However, laws are more than just what they intend - it's what they actually do, how they're enforced, their secondary effects, etc. People don't like being tracked without consent, but people haaate all the "This site uses cookies" popups. From that perspective, I am not so sure about all of this. The language feels like its grasping at straws a bit prematurely in an attempt to head-off a problem which isn't fully manifest yet. Yes, it's good to get ahead of this sort of thing, but, IDK, I just wasn't fully convinced the legalese knew what it was on about. It even admits as such, stating that it encourages using broad terminology to future-proof itself and encompass the rapid pace of innovation. Plus, yeah, as others have mentioned -- I feel EU is starting to litigate its way out of technical relevancy. It's one thing if the forefront of innovation were occurring there, and they were then dictating how that innovation should evolve, but that doesn't seem to be what's occurring. Technological progress is a cornerstone of strong GDPs and I'm starting to fear for the EU a bit in this regard.
- catlifeonmars 3y ago> People don't like being tracked without consent, but people haaate all the "This site uses cookies" popups. I thought that was the intent… surfacing ubiquitous tracking to direct consumer frustration at the practice itself.
- crazygringo 3y agoI don't think so, because that consumer frustration has resulted in nothing. Nada. We click the popups and get annoyed at the EU, not at the website.
- jiscariot 3y agoHow many popup warnings will I need to bypass/accept in order to use my LLM of choice?
- wellthisisgreat 3y agoJust a brief conversation where you’d need to make your case to a friendly EU-hosted LLM
- bilsbie 3y agoWhat are the regulations exactly?
- error9348 3y agohttps://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1733481002234679685 https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1733481002234679685 > The EU AI Act negotiations ended. One contentious issue was the regulation of foundation models, particularly open source ones. > Kudos to the French, German, and Italian governments for not giving up on open source models. > Juicy part: "The legislation ultimately included restrictions for foundation models but gave broad exemptions to “open-source models,” which are developed using code that’s freely available for developers to alter for their own products and tools. The move could benefit open-source AI companies in Europe that lobbied against the law, including France’s Mistral and Germany’s Aleph Alpha, as well as Meta, which released the open-source model LLaMA."
- satvikpendem 3y ago> which released the open-source model LLaMA While this part is inaccurate, the open-source stipulations of the regulation is something I applaud too, as it would be too easy to have regulatory capture by the big companies such that only they could afford the licenses necessary to create AI and thereby have onerous influence over our lives. More software, especially of the critical variety like AI, should be open source.
- throwaway5959 3y agoIf you can’t innovate, litigate.
- stainablesteel 3y agoits almost like they want to send all of their talent to the US and Japan such a weird move
- Trombone12 3y agoIt's for fairness, the EU has to handicap itself after the US decided to ban abortion and persecute trans people.
- __loam 3y agoGood, fuck exploitative machine learning.
- nektro 3y agoyay!
- zlg_codes 3y ago"The algorithm" is going to be the next few decades' scapegoat. "It wasn't a human, it was a machine!" "...coded by a human."