3 ms·

It's a slippery slope. China developed one of the most sophisticated tracking systems to monitor each step be that digital or physical of it's citizens. Should

It's a slippery slope. China developed one of the most sophisticated tracking systems to monitor each step be that digital or physical of it's citizens. Should EU/US do the same? IMO no, China is a 'masked' dictatorship and we must not follow every step China does. If they are detected to train their models on global data and we don't want this, simply pass even more laws to block inbound china traffic, apply more sanctions. You have written "The European Union, for instance, is often viewed as having hindered innovation with excessive regulations over the past decade" - but how do we know if that's true? Maybe its regulation didn't do much and the US growth is simply caused by the printing machine for the global currency combined with an extremely homogeneous market (all ppl speak the same language and globally a lot more ppl speak english compared to say german/french) and it's part of one country compared to EU that's a group of countries operating under some agreements but with still different laws/cultures. How do we know that specifically EU regulation is the root cause of 'less' EU innovation compared to the US and not the other things?

fvv 3y ago
"China developed one of the most sophisticated tracking systems to monitor each step be that digital or physical of it's citizens. " that tracking system is not an industrial revolution ... you are comparing different thing ( that was my mp3 licencing reference , the compromise on preventive legislative micro-management must be evaluated based on importance )
- fvv 3y ago
  a further point could be cryptocurrencies, they are much more regulated in China than in Europe and the USA, states choose what to regulate based on the need for control/growth/safeguarding/... everything affects different points differently, make comparisons with others laws or regulations on other topics must take into consideration the implications that these different categories have on the compared subject
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  eu isn't regulating all ai usecases either, just some of them, you instead phrase it like we should let corpos act as they want, unbounded, suck all public data, build stuff that may not be legally allowed in normal cases and make huge profits because that's the only way our civilization advances. We know what corporate greed is, some bounds must be put in place to avoid unintended consequences
fvv 3y ago
"simply pass even more laws to block inbound china traffic, apply more sanctions." .. like an eu/us "firewall"? so "they" can have their AI that makes new molecules, new medicines, new materials, increases productivity by 5x , in the meantime should we separate all the scientific research papers because otherwise they will devour us? , so we move backwards but are we giving $5 more to everyone who wrote a book that no one has read? so they can buy the chinese vpn to access their ai to write the next book for the next 5$ ?
- fvv 3y ago
  to remain on t he topic... obv. those 5$ would also go to all youtube channels gosh, those could also be 30$ if you really want to split revenue more equally, so everyone could be 30$ richer and open ai and all newcomers under that legislation could be dead, yeah probably we'll specialize on niche , small, and costly ai each with their limited and licensed dataset
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  yes, they will have own models, we will have own models (if the law permits, since not every usecase should be allowed). Even the productivity increase by 5x must be approached carefully, like what if it causes massive unemployment (since ppl working on automated jobs will suddenly be out of working field and will not be able to adapt/switch to other areas fast enough and be homeless as result). Some regulations are/can be bad, but other must be put in place to avoid unwanted consequences. The unbounded capitalism at all cost is a thing in US but not in EU and even less in China. What strikes me, why do you think that EU/US can't do all this stuff if they put in place some regulations (like molecules,medicines,materials, etc...)? Regulations (normally) should limit only a subset of usecases while allowing others, don't you think it's a normal approach instead of letting big corpos suck for free any public data(be it copyrighted or personal) and act unbounded while profiting from this? We know what corporate greed is, look at the insulin price in US vs EU, why don't you think that the same will happen with AI tools/corpos?

fvv 3y ago

"China developed one of the most sophisticated tracking systems to monitor each step be that digital or physical of it's citizens. " that tracking system is not an industrial revolution ... you are comparing different thing ( that was my mp3 licencing reference , the compromise on preventive legislative micro-management must be evaluated based on importance )

fvv 3y ago
a further point could be cryptocurrencies, they are much more regulated in China than in Europe and the USA, states choose what to regulate based on the need for control/growth/safeguarding/... everything affects different points differently, make comparisons with others laws or regulations on other topics must take into consideration the implications that these different categories have on the compared subject
Moldoteck 3y ago
eu isn't regulating all ai usecases either, just some of them, you instead phrase it like we should let corpos act as they want, unbounded, suck all public data, build stuff that may not be legally allowed in normal cases and make huge profits because that's the only way our civilization advances. We know what corporate greed is, some bounds must be put in place to avoid unintended consequences

fvv 3y ago

"simply pass even more laws to block inbound china traffic, apply more sanctions." .. like an eu/us "firewall"? so "they" can have their AI that makes new molecules, new medicines, new materials, increases productivity by 5x , in the meantime should we separate all the scientific research papers because otherwise they will devour us? , so we move backwards but are we giving $5 more to everyone who wrote a book that no one has read? so they can buy the chinese vpn to access their ai to write the next book for the next 5$ ?

fvv 3y ago
to remain on t he topic... obv. those 5$ would also go to all youtube channels gosh, those could also be 30$ if you really want to split revenue more equally, so everyone could be 30$ richer and open ai and all newcomers under that legislation could be dead, yeah probably we'll specialize on niche , small, and costly ai each with their limited and licensed dataset
Moldoteck 3y ago
yes, they will have own models, we will have own models (if the law permits, since not every usecase should be allowed). Even the productivity increase by 5x must be approached carefully, like what if it causes massive unemployment (since ppl working on automated jobs will suddenly be out of working field and will not be able to adapt/switch to other areas fast enough and be homeless as result). Some regulations are/can be bad, but other must be put in place to avoid unwanted consequences. The unbounded capitalism at all cost is a thing in US but not in EU and even less in China. What strikes me, why do you think that EU/US can't do all this stuff if they put in place some regulations (like molecules,medicines,materials, etc...)? Regulations (normally) should limit only a subset of usecases while allowing others, don't you think it's a normal approach instead of letting big corpos suck for free any public data(be it copyrighted or personal) and act unbounded while profiting from this? We know what corporate greed is, look at the insulin price in US vs EU, why don't you think that the same will happen with AI tools/corpos?