4 ms·

That's the idea, yes. It is not really about the techniques used but about what you are using these programs for. If law enforcement used, say, the average bri

by GuB-42 3y ago

That's the idea, yes. It is not really about the techniques used but about what you are using these programs for. If law enforcement used, say, the average brightness of a picture of someone's face as a basis for suspicion, it could hardly be called AI, but it is nevertheless a highly concerning usage of technology and shouldn't be given a pass just because it is not advanced enough.

soulofmischief 3y ago
I'm sorry but I cannot see how to view this charitably. To me it clearly seems to be a way to enact further unjustified regulation on something that would otherwise be hard to create public support for, by using big new scary words like AI, even though it has massive overreach into more traditional programs.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  If you tell people the computer program that profiled them as a probable scumbag and denied them credit or a job was using methods from the 1980s instead of the newest neural nets, that won't change how they feel about it. Objecting to regulation of such systems because you think the term "AI" should be reserved for the newest and trendiest systems very "HN" and misses the forest for the trees. The EU is rightly concerned about the ways that computers empowered to make important decisions might impact people's lives might perpetrate injustice; that's what is important here. Not some whiny semantic nitpicks about what to call those programs.
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    If you tell people it was a program using methods from the 1980s instead of the newest neural nets, it likely would change how they feel about the newest neural nets. Clarity is the only way to avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face.
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  But don't you think that there should be regulation saying that delegating decisions to a technology system should make you fully responsible, and that growing capability of these systems make it more important to clarify that any "mistrusted the machine by accident" argument is null and void? For me, it's not important if the legal definition requires this term. It's not like automation and computer programs are being banned. It's the decision part that justifies this legal definition IMO. It's like the difference between a human or an automated car running over people. Quite literally even.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > But don't you think that there should be regulation saying that delegating decisions to a technology system What is a "decision"? My computer is making billions of decisions per second. If nothing else, I could see this crippling FOSS. No one is going to want to be "responsible" to some EU bureaucrat pursuing a personal political agenda, certainly not for work you've done for free.
    - moritzwarhier 3y ago
      Yeah I wanted to expand but got tired: Of course any computation can be considered a decision in some way. But this is conflating a narrow and IT-specific meaning of that word with legalese and philosophy, or my intended meaning of the word. This reminds me of the ancient catastrophic Therac-25 software bug, and other such cases. Maybe this case is a good example for thinking about what part of the responsibility is on the side of the operator, apart from the obvious failure of the implementer. For more modern examples involving actual ML, look at Meta, TikTok and their recommendations: where is the line to draw, what excuses are allowed, when the outcome is obviously negative, and the algorithm claims to fulfill a goal? It doesn't matter if it's a rule-based system without "intelligence" or ML. What matters is the responsibility of the human operator. And making assumptions about correctness. Humans make egregious errors as well, but the kind of errors AI causes are a significant concern where current legislation is insufficient. It's one thing to have a bug in your airplane controller code or whatever. It's another to knowingly accept malicious errors, either unpredictable or even intentional, but without proper responsibility?
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> That's the idea, yes. Hmmm... if that's the case, I expect to see a lot of software taken off the EU market, whether by simply removing it from the app stores for Euro Zone or other means. This is gonna be the new GPDR.
- acdha 3y ago
  > This is gonna be the new GPDR We should certainly hope so given how much that forced a long overdue reckoning for the data collection and sales markets.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    Well, no. Outfits like Facebook and Amazon can afford to hire attorneys to keep them in compliance with GPDR (or, more accurately, skirt around it). Small website operators can't do that. Accordingly, many have banned EU IP addresses altogether. The basic phenomenon is called "regulatory capture" -- the large player counterintuitively does not object to onerous regulations, because their smaller competitors can't afford to comply with them. Happens all the time, in many different sectors of the economy. With regard to FOSS, I certainly wouldn't work on anything for free that was likely to get me enmeshed in the legal system of another country. If this legislation is as described above, someone's probably working on a FOSS license right now that allows the software to be used everywhere except the EU.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      Complying with GDPR shouldn’t be that hard at all for most businesses if they introduce some basic procedures for handling/storing user data and most importantly don’t want to transfer/sell it to third parties
    - troupo 3y ago
      > can afford to hire attorneys to keep them in compliance with GPDR Compliance with GDPR is trivial for the absolute vast majority of businesses. Here's how GitHub does it: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ --- start quote --- At GitHub, we want to protect developer privacy, and we find cookie banners quite irritating, so we decided to look for a solution. After a brief search, we found one: just don’t use any non-essential cookies. Pretty simple, really. So, we have removed all non-essential cookies from GitHub, and visiting our website does not send any information to third-party analytics services. (And of course GitHub still does not use any cookies to display ads, or track you across other sites.) --- end quote ---

by GuB-42 3y ago

soulofmischief 3y ago

I'm sorry but I cannot see how to view this charitably. To me it clearly seems to be a way to enact further unjustified regulation on something that would otherwise be hard to create public support for, by using big new scary words like AI, even though it has massive overreach into more traditional programs.

mcpackieh 3y ago
If you tell people the computer program that profiled them as a probable scumbag and denied them credit or a job was using methods from the 1980s instead of the newest neural nets, that won't change how they feel about it. Objecting to regulation of such systems because you think the term "AI" should be reserved for the newest and trendiest systems very "HN" and misses the forest for the trees. The EU is rightly concerned about the ways that computers empowered to make important decisions might impact people's lives might perpetrate injustice; that's what is important here. Not some whiny semantic nitpicks about what to call those programs.
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  If you tell people it was a program using methods from the 1980s instead of the newest neural nets, it likely would change how they feel about the newest neural nets. Clarity is the only way to avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face.
moritzwarhier 3y ago
But don't you think that there should be regulation saying that delegating decisions to a technology system should make you fully responsible, and that growing capability of these systems make it more important to clarify that any "mistrusted the machine by accident" argument is null and void? For me, it's not important if the legal definition requires this term. It's not like automation and computer programs are being banned. It's the decision part that justifies this legal definition IMO. It's like the difference between a human or an automated car running over people. Quite literally even.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > But don't you think that there should be regulation saying that delegating decisions to a technology system What is a "decision"? My computer is making billions of decisions per second. If nothing else, I could see this crippling FOSS. No one is going to want to be "responsible" to some EU bureaucrat pursuing a personal political agenda, certainly not for work you've done for free.
  - moritzwarhier 3y ago
    Yeah I wanted to expand but got tired: Of course any computation can be considered a decision in some way. But this is conflating a narrow and IT-specific meaning of that word with legalese and philosophy, or my intended meaning of the word. This reminds me of the ancient catastrophic Therac-25 software bug, and other such cases. Maybe this case is a good example for thinking about what part of the responsibility is on the side of the operator, apart from the obvious failure of the implementer. For more modern examples involving actual ML, look at Meta, TikTok and their recommendations: where is the line to draw, what excuses are allowed, when the outcome is obviously negative, and the algorithm claims to fulfill a goal? It doesn't matter if it's a rule-based system without "intelligence" or ML. What matters is the responsibility of the human operator. And making assumptions about correctness. Humans make egregious errors as well, but the kind of errors AI causes are a significant concern where current legislation is insufficient. It's one thing to have a bug in your airplane controller code or whatever. It's another to knowingly accept malicious errors, either unpredictable or even intentional, but without proper responsibility?

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> That's the idea, yes. Hmmm... if that's the case, I expect to see a lot of software taken off the EU market, whether by simply removing it from the app stores for Euro Zone or other means. This is gonna be the new GPDR.

acdha 3y ago
> This is gonna be the new GPDR We should certainly hope so given how much that forced a long overdue reckoning for the data collection and sales markets.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  Well, no. Outfits like Facebook and Amazon can afford to hire attorneys to keep them in compliance with GPDR (or, more accurately, skirt around it). Small website operators can't do that. Accordingly, many have banned EU IP addresses altogether. The basic phenomenon is called "regulatory capture" -- the large player counterintuitively does not object to onerous regulations, because their smaller competitors can't afford to comply with them. Happens all the time, in many different sectors of the economy. With regard to FOSS, I certainly wouldn't work on anything for free that was likely to get me enmeshed in the legal system of another country. If this legislation is as described above, someone's probably working on a FOSS license right now that allows the software to be used everywhere except the EU.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    Complying with GDPR shouldn’t be that hard at all for most businesses if they introduce some basic procedures for handling/storing user data and most importantly don’t want to transfer/sell it to third parties
  - troupo 3y ago
    > can afford to hire attorneys to keep them in compliance with GPDR Compliance with GDPR is trivial for the absolute vast majority of businesses. Here's how GitHub does it: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ --- start quote --- At GitHub, we want to protect developer privacy, and we find cookie banners quite irritating, so we decided to look for a solution. After a brief search, we found one: just don’t use any non-essential cookies. Pretty simple, really. So, we have removed all non-essential cookies from GitHub, and visiting our website does not send any information to third-party analytics services. (And of course GitHub still does not use any cookies to display ads, or track you across other sites.) --- end quote ---