10 ms·

Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to support competition instead. You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets

Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to support competition instead. You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. However, virtually every other piece of regulation does the opposite. Regulation usually gets trotted out after the downside of doing [new innovation] is experienced. This always happens, because doing something new always involves unknown risk. Most people aren't entrepreneurs and hate risk, so they pass regulation, and the market gets locked down so nothing new happens again. Incumbents and their army of lawyers can easily comply or are grandfathered in, and challengers are permanently disadvantaged. That market is officially dead until the next fundamental leap forward in technology. What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading regulators to pass this incumbent-cementing regulation before we've even had a chance to experience both the upside and downside, so the innovation never happens at all. Combine this with a rapidly aging demography in Europe, and I only see this trend increasing. If there's one thing old people hate, it's risk and doing new things. Meanwhile, those same old folks are expecting massive payouts (social benefits) via taxation of the same private sector they're currently kneecapping with red tape. While ironic, those two trends converging aren't great for Europe.

lolinder 2y ago
> You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. I'm against the way it's being applied to Apple. I don't think that the government should dictate that consumers aren't allowed to choose a platform that's a locked down walled garden if that's what they want. We have platforms that aren't walled gardens (Android) that many of us happily use (myself included), and Apple shouldn't have to become something that it didn't set out to be just because a few other big tech companies feel stifled by Apple's rules.
- fl0id 2y ago
  this argument doesn't work, because you could always argue that the consumer chose this product, and thus its features and practices should be allowed. Apple had it coming for a long time already, one way or another. And Microsoft also will again the way they are going.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Yeah, sure, you could always argue that about anything, but that's not a refutation of this particular argument in this particular situation. Apple's walled garden produces a lot of real benefits for its customers that are part of what make it successful, and dismantling their walled garden is going to harm consumers. I would never pick an Apple device for myself. I would also never recommend an Android phone to my mother-in-law. I, myself, know to avoid the many Android security holes that exist because it's a relaxed platform. But for my non-technical loved ones, Apple provides a much better experience in large part because it's a walled garden that makes it very difficult to install garbage.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      > Apple's walled garden produces a lot of real benefits for its customers that are part of what make it successful, and dismantling their walled garden is going to harm consumers. What are those benefits, and why would they evaporate if Apple adds an "Install from other sources" toggle? If you want to exclusively benefit from Apple's discernment, keep that toggle off and stay in the walled garden.If the benefits are so great, then surely everyone will choose to stay in the walled garden.
      - echoangle 2y ago
        The problem is that having the option of exiting the walled garden kills the garden. As soon as the most important apps aren’t available on the apple App Store any more, everyone will have to exit the garden. You can argue about the pros and cons of that, but you can’t deny that this has an effect on every apple user, not just the ones that choose to exit.
        tcfhgj 2y ago
        People do have to exit the garden as much as people have to buy apple devices
      - dwaite 2y ago
        The App Store review provides protections which are not a technical protections. Earlier someone talked about the failing of allowing a $50 subscription flashlight app into the store (dunno if they’d be able to find a citation). This was a failing of the expected business controls. There’s nothing technical to even be done to prevent these sorts of abuses. One example from a while back was banning an internal Facebook enterprise developer account because they were using it to install a VPN onto users devices for the purpose of monitoring user behavior for competitive market analysis. This is not anything that can be prevented by technical controls, and was only able to be published because enterprise profiles can deploy apps outside the store. Apple wants their customers to be safe. Third party marketplaces take that responsibility and control out of their hands. Apple stopped that VPN abuse immediately upon finding out about it. How long would it take for European regulators to force Facebook to turn off such a self published app of their own accord?
- standardUser 2y ago
  Apple needs to get out of the infrastructure business if they want to play by their own rules. They aren't selling Gameboys and washing machines, they are storing people's private data and selling primary communication devices. That needs to be regulated and the consumer needs to have the final say, not Apple.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > they are storing people's private data and selling primary communication devices. To be clear, I think privacy laws like GDPR absolutely have a place for consumer protection. I just don't think the DMA does. Watching how the DMA applies to Apple, it feels far less about consumer protection than it does about businesses, and that's what makes me uncomfortable. The EU is in this case listening to complaints from a bunch of other businesses who do not have consumer interests at heart and ignoring the very real damage that their actions could do to consumer protection. The Apple App Store protects users from myriad abuses by myriad bad companies. The EU wants Apple to build a blessed, paved off-ramp that companies can strongly encourage prospective customers to use that brings them deeper into the manipulative control of those companies.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      > The Apple App Store protects users from myriad abuses by myriad bad companies. Does it? Are the $50/month subscription flashlight apps gone? This is just a form of 'think of the children'. Think of all those evil hackers waiting around the corner for the poor unsuspecting iPhone users.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        > Think of all those evil hackers waiting around the corner for the poor unsuspecting iPhone users. I'm not talking "evil hackers". I'm talking about Facebook just for a start. Once they pave the way and teach users how to use the off-ramp (or else not be able to use Facebook!) they'll be followed by dozens of smaller abusive companies that are eager to pass by Apple's review requirements. I'm far less concerned about software vulnerabilities than I am about the companies that Apple's business policies currently keep in check.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  If Apple was required to provide root access to all customers this would not prevent anyone from choosing to stay inside their walled garden.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    The question isn't whether anyone could choose to stay inside if they want to, the question is whether I can trust that {insert older relative here} will stay inside the garden and not get tricked by a sketchy website into installing something through the back doors the EU is mandating. If the opening up of Apple were as difficult to use as getting root on Android is I wouldn't have a problem. But that's not what's being proposed, and any attempts by Apple to make it less than perfectly smooth for someone to exit the walled garden are most likely going to be shot down.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      How difficult is it to get root in Android in your world? Getting root on Android comes in a variety of difficulties.
  - merrywhether 2y ago
    You need app Foo on your phone for work (like Slack, maybe). Foo is in the App Store and worked great on your iPhone but decides they want to install via their own store so they can monetize employees’ data (location, whatever) to make more money. The new store launches, the new app version abuses private APIs, and the App Store version stops working. Your company announces that all employees need to download from the new source. Do you really have a choice about staying in the walled garden? Sure, neither your company nor Foo should suck, but we all know plenty of companies that don’t care about employees or users. Game company Bar decides to launch their own store and pull their game - we’ll call it Nortfite - from the App Store so they can add something shady like crypto features. Nortfite is a massive social game that all your friends play and it’s a huge part of your teenage social life. Your only device capable of playing it is your second-hand iPad. Do you really have a choice about staying in the walled garden? Who needs friends anyway, amirite?
- ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  Going out of your way on the internet to defend apples right to take 30% of every sale on the app store is insane to me. Just how can you not see there's probably 20% of every purchase sitting on the table if competition was ever allowed to occur. Not to mention the simple freedom of choosing what you want to install yourself, and not just what Apple allows you to...
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Not to mention the simple freedom of choosing what you want to install yourself, and not just what Apple allows you to... I have the freedom to install whatever I want. I get that freedom by using Linux and Android. I choose to have that freedom by selecting platforms that provide it. Many HN users seem to want all the benefits of Apple's approach with none of the downsides, and it doesn't work that way. Apple is what it is because it has a tight, coherent strategy, and forcing Apple to change that strategy will have knock-on effects that most Apple users won't like. If you value freedom to install whatever you want, you chose the wrong ecosystem, and hijacking the ecosystem to satisfy your values is unfair to the vast majority of customers whose values already align with the ecosystem's.
    - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
      The Apple are trying to hijack the ecosystem of free competition and open market.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Apple is providing an entry into the free smartphone market that is a closed system with a highly controlled and curated software ecosystem. That is their product, that's what they offer. It's no different than Nintendo's entry into the game console market being what it is—some people will choose that experience because what it offers is valuable for them. For myself, I'm an Android phone user and a PC gamer, but just because I wouldn't choose those experiences for myself doesn't mean I begrudge their existence.
- littlecosmic 2y ago
  I reckon the peaceful existence of macOS is a counterpoint to this argument.
- account42 2y ago
  Are you also for workers being able to choose to live in company towns where they have to spend their incomes at the company store? When lock in and network effects come into play then yes the government should make sure that people have real and not only theoretical choices.
swatcoder 2y ago
> What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading regulators to pass potential market killing regulation This is entirely because the experts and fundraisers in the field promoted the technology as existentially and societally dangerous before they even got it to do anything commercially viable. "This has so much potential that it could destroy us all!" was the sales pitch! Of course regulators are going to take that seriously, as there's nobody of influence vested in trying to show them otherwise.
- galangalalgol 2y ago
  The experts did that specifically so we would regulate barriers to entry into existence. It isn't a mew trick. Regulatory capture takes many guises, "think of the": Children, Consumers, ... Under booked hotels we could put you in.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  OpenAI was smart enough to build a moat for itself in Europe. The EU was dumb enough to dig it for them.
  - monksy 2y ago
    What is the value that OpenAI is bringing to the US right now? Mostly its being used to generate text that fit a query.
    - sensanaty 2y ago
      That's not true, it's also very useful when trying to defraud and scam people en-masse!
      - yimmothathird 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      What value does a google search provide?
no_wizard 2y ago
Specifically with AI I don’t want to experience the downside of innovation before we regulate because of how wide spread its use already is, and it’s problems have already become apparent. For example, it’s being used to job screen applicants even though we have proven that AI models still suffer from thing like racial bias. Companies don’t disclose how their models are trained to negate bias or anything like that either and that’s one example I remember off the top of my head
- nottorp 2y ago
  > it’s being used to job screen applicants even though we have proven that AI models still suffer from thing like racial bias I bet they also suffer from other biases that are harder to detect and maybe some biases we can't even imagine and thus control for.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - chfalck 2y ago
    Kind of like humans in that regard
    - petre 2y ago
      Except being able to process 1e9 more applications, thus massively more biased and discriminatory.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    So.....,just like humans?
    - killingtime74 2y ago
      That's the point though. It's illegal for humans to do things during hiring that are not illegal for AI to do as it stands now (all sorts of discrimination). We want to at least level the playing field.
monksy 2y ago
It's not that most people hate risk. It's that individuals whom are harmed by sociopathic individuals that exploit methodologies, techniques, and products to enrich, steal, and harm the population. (When I say that I mean financially, emotionally, socially, physically, etc). To add further insult to injury, defending ones self against these individuals is disproportionately impossible. Socially: Creating and cultivating a culture that screws up dating. Emotionally: Filter bubbles, and data analyitics to push proganda and motivate people in directions (cambridge). Additionally subjecting people to material to manipulate. Stealing: Scooter companies are actively stealing the public space to operate their business (sidewalks), endorsing their users to run over people on the sidewalk (also making it difficult to identify the individual), etc. Privacy wise: Companies are forcing you to give up your private info to live. (Retail tracking to individuals.. even accross multiple companies [see "The Retail Equation"])
- pembrook 2y ago
  I'm not insulting people who hate risk. For the stability and health of society, it's good that most people are that way. We need people who shake their fist at anything new or different to keep us sane (people like you it seems, from your laundry list of frustrations). But we also need the people who do like risk taking and new stuff, and there's less of them. So innovation is much more of a fragile thing than stasis. Even if you think society and human life in general can't be improved in any way, to just maintain the way things are now...will require many new innovations and people taking risk on new stuff. Your welfare, lifestyle, and security depends on the risk taking of others. So we should probably be careful about making it too hard for the folks taking risk (it's already hard enough). Trust me, the risk-averse folks will still be the dominant voice either way. Even this forum--which started as a community of risk-taking entrepreneurial types--is now dominated by the risk-averse majority.
  - pyrale 2y ago
    > But we also need the people who do like risk taking and new stuff The issue with that is that risk is usually not borne by the people getting rewards.
  - 2y ago
harimau777 2y ago
>> Most people aren't entrepreneurs and hate risk, so they pass regulation, and the market gets locked down so nothing new happens again I think that the bigger issue is that the people who suffer when the risk goes bad and the people who benefit when the risk goes well usually aren't the same people.
viraptor 2y ago
> You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason You missed most of the discussions about DMA on HN, I guess. There's always someone ready to say how EU will kill all innovation and make Google/Apple exit the market because they dare to question anything.
lofaszvanitt 2y ago
"before we've even had a chance to experience both the upside and downside, so the innovation never happens at all." ---- Let me laugh out loud. Those, who govern these companies know 10 years ahead how and what will happen. Bigdiks higher up has 10-20 year plans. And people talk about "before we had a chance to experience the upsides and the downsides". Get a grip on reality.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Google didn’t know in 2006 where cell phones were headed. If they did, they wouldn’t have made an Android as a BlackBerry clone. No company can accurately predict where technology is headed a decade from now.
  - lofaszvanitt 2y ago
    oakay
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      You ever read the first edition of Bill Gates “The Road Ahead” where he didn’t even mention the Internet? Google thinking the future of phones were BlackBerry clones? Palm CEO “The PC guys aren’t just going to walk in a figure this thing out” referring to the then rumored iPhone.
      - lofaszvanitt 2y ago
        Predigested bs for people to ruminate about. Rather watch Tom & Jerry, that has much more profound thoughts.
- pembrook 2y ago
  Yea, so wildly out of touch with reality. The governing elite are wizards of prediction! Sundar at Google knew LLMs were going to be huge after Google invented them, so that’s why they were first to market and… Oops. Maybe not? While it might make risk-averse types feel good to imagine the people in charge are all-knowing (see religion), the truth is the world is a chaotic and reflexive system of unpredictability. Scary, I know!
arp242 2y ago
> You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. You're commenting on an article doing exactly that. So that was not much of a struggle.
Xen9 2y ago
Makes no economical sense, but arguably the right response to not only AI, but every thing.
stemlord 2y ago
>Regulation usually gets trotted out after the downside of doing [new innovation] is experienced. This always happens, because doing something new always involves unknown risk. I would challenge "unknown"-- it very well seems like the risks have been known every time, they just don't give a shit >What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading regulators to pass this incumbent-cementing regulation before we've even had a chance to experience ... Sounds good to me? It's sociopathic and opportunistic to want to risk major socioeconomic issues for the mere chance of a corporate "innovation"
account42 2y ago
> Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to support competition instead. Actually pretty much all EU regulations and especially enforcement of those regulations gets pundits shouting that the EU is only trying to milk US megacorporations. > However, virtually every other piece of regulation does the opposite. Not true but even if so not all regulation concerns itself with monopolies. GDPR in particular is about user rights and should therefore apply to everyone, same for similar kinds of regulations. If corporations cannot survive without violating you in every way possible then they should not be allowed to live. If anything is lacking it's enforcement against incumbents. > What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading regulators to pass this incumbent-cementing regulation before we've even had a chance to experience both the upside and downside, so the innovation never happens at all. Good. Not all "innovation" should happen. > Combine this with a rapidly aging demography in Europe, and I only see this trend increasing. If there's one thing old people hate, it's risk and doing new things. Again, good. Moving fast and breaking things at societal scale is not a good idea.

lolinder 2y ago

> You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. I'm against the way it's being applied to Apple. I don't think that the government should dictate that consumers aren't allowed to choose a platform that's a locked down walled garden if that's what they want. We have platforms that aren't walled gardens (Android) that many of us happily use (myself included), and Apple shouldn't have to become something that it didn't set out to be just because a few other big tech companies feel stifled by Apple's rules.

fl0id 2y ago
this argument doesn't work, because you could always argue that the consumer chose this product, and thus its features and practices should be allowed. Apple had it coming for a long time already, one way or another. And Microsoft also will again the way they are going.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Yeah, sure, you could always argue that about anything, but that's not a refutation of this particular argument in this particular situation. Apple's walled garden produces a lot of real benefits for its customers that are part of what make it successful, and dismantling their walled garden is going to harm consumers. I would never pick an Apple device for myself. I would also never recommend an Android phone to my mother-in-law. I, myself, know to avoid the many Android security holes that exist because it's a relaxed platform. But for my non-technical loved ones, Apple provides a much better experience in large part because it's a walled garden that makes it very difficult to install garbage.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > Apple's walled garden produces a lot of real benefits for its customers that are part of what make it successful, and dismantling their walled garden is going to harm consumers. What are those benefits, and why would they evaporate if Apple adds an "Install from other sources" toggle? If you want to exclusively benefit from Apple's discernment, keep that toggle off and stay in the walled garden.If the benefits are so great, then surely everyone will choose to stay in the walled garden.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      The problem is that having the option of exiting the walled garden kills the garden. As soon as the most important apps aren’t available on the apple App Store any more, everyone will have to exit the garden. You can argue about the pros and cons of that, but you can’t deny that this has an effect on every apple user, not just the ones that choose to exit.
      - tcfhgj 2y ago
        People do have to exit the garden as much as people have to buy apple devices
    - dwaite 2y ago
      The App Store review provides protections which are not a technical protections. Earlier someone talked about the failing of allowing a $50 subscription flashlight app into the store (dunno if they’d be able to find a citation). This was a failing of the expected business controls. There’s nothing technical to even be done to prevent these sorts of abuses. One example from a while back was banning an internal Facebook enterprise developer account because they were using it to install a VPN onto users devices for the purpose of monitoring user behavior for competitive market analysis. This is not anything that can be prevented by technical controls, and was only able to be published because enterprise profiles can deploy apps outside the store. Apple wants their customers to be safe. Third party marketplaces take that responsibility and control out of their hands. Apple stopped that VPN abuse immediately upon finding out about it. How long would it take for European regulators to force Facebook to turn off such a self published app of their own accord?
standardUser 2y ago
Apple needs to get out of the infrastructure business if they want to play by their own rules. They aren't selling Gameboys and washing machines, they are storing people's private data and selling primary communication devices. That needs to be regulated and the consumer needs to have the final say, not Apple.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > they are storing people's private data and selling primary communication devices. To be clear, I think privacy laws like GDPR absolutely have a place for consumer protection. I just don't think the DMA does. Watching how the DMA applies to Apple, it feels far less about consumer protection than it does about businesses, and that's what makes me uncomfortable. The EU is in this case listening to complaints from a bunch of other businesses who do not have consumer interests at heart and ignoring the very real damage that their actions could do to consumer protection. The Apple App Store protects users from myriad abuses by myriad bad companies. The EU wants Apple to build a blessed, paved off-ramp that companies can strongly encourage prospective customers to use that brings them deeper into the manipulative control of those companies.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    > The Apple App Store protects users from myriad abuses by myriad bad companies. Does it? Are the $50/month subscription flashlight apps gone? This is just a form of 'think of the children'. Think of all those evil hackers waiting around the corner for the poor unsuspecting iPhone users.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > Think of all those evil hackers waiting around the corner for the poor unsuspecting iPhone users. I'm not talking "evil hackers". I'm talking about Facebook just for a start. Once they pave the way and teach users how to use the off-ramp (or else not be able to use Facebook!) they'll be followed by dozens of smaller abusive companies that are eager to pass by Apple's review requirements. I'm far less concerned about software vulnerabilities than I am about the companies that Apple's business policies currently keep in check.
fallingknife 2y ago
If Apple was required to provide root access to all customers this would not prevent anyone from choosing to stay inside their walled garden.
- lolinder 2y ago
  The question isn't whether anyone could choose to stay inside if they want to, the question is whether I can trust that {insert older relative here} will stay inside the garden and not get tricked by a sketchy website into installing something through the back doors the EU is mandating. If the opening up of Apple were as difficult to use as getting root on Android is I wouldn't have a problem. But that's not what's being proposed, and any attempts by Apple to make it less than perfectly smooth for someone to exit the walled garden are most likely going to be shot down.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    How difficult is it to get root in Android in your world? Getting root on Android comes in a variety of difficulties.
- merrywhether 2y ago
  You need app Foo on your phone for work (like Slack, maybe). Foo is in the App Store and worked great on your iPhone but decides they want to install via their own store so they can monetize employees’ data (location, whatever) to make more money. The new store launches, the new app version abuses private APIs, and the App Store version stops working. Your company announces that all employees need to download from the new source. Do you really have a choice about staying in the walled garden? Sure, neither your company nor Foo should suck, but we all know plenty of companies that don’t care about employees or users. Game company Bar decides to launch their own store and pull their game - we’ll call it Nortfite - from the App Store so they can add something shady like crypto features. Nortfite is a massive social game that all your friends play and it’s a huge part of your teenage social life. Your only device capable of playing it is your second-hand iPad. Do you really have a choice about staying in the walled garden? Who needs friends anyway, amirite?
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
Going out of your way on the internet to defend apples right to take 30% of every sale on the app store is insane to me. Just how can you not see there's probably 20% of every purchase sitting on the table if competition was ever allowed to occur. Not to mention the simple freedom of choosing what you want to install yourself, and not just what Apple allows you to...
- lolinder 2y ago
  > Not to mention the simple freedom of choosing what you want to install yourself, and not just what Apple allows you to... I have the freedom to install whatever I want. I get that freedom by using Linux and Android. I choose to have that freedom by selecting platforms that provide it. Many HN users seem to want all the benefits of Apple's approach with none of the downsides, and it doesn't work that way. Apple is what it is because it has a tight, coherent strategy, and forcing Apple to change that strategy will have knock-on effects that most Apple users won't like. If you value freedom to install whatever you want, you chose the wrong ecosystem, and hijacking the ecosystem to satisfy your values is unfair to the vast majority of customers whose values already align with the ecosystem's.
  - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
    The Apple are trying to hijack the ecosystem of free competition and open market.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Apple is providing an entry into the free smartphone market that is a closed system with a highly controlled and curated software ecosystem. That is their product, that's what they offer. It's no different than Nintendo's entry into the game console market being what it is—some people will choose that experience because what it offers is valuable for them. For myself, I'm an Android phone user and a PC gamer, but just because I wouldn't choose those experiences for myself doesn't mean I begrudge their existence.
littlecosmic 2y ago
I reckon the peaceful existence of macOS is a counterpoint to this argument.
account42 2y ago
Are you also for workers being able to choose to live in company towns where they have to spend their incomes at the company store? When lock in and network effects come into play then yes the government should make sure that people have real and not only theoretical choices.

swatcoder 2y ago

> What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading regulators to pass potential market killing regulation This is entirely because the experts and fundraisers in the field promoted the technology as existentially and societally dangerous before they even got it to do anything commercially viable. "This has so much potential that it could destroy us all!" was the sales pitch! Of course regulators are going to take that seriously, as there's nobody of influence vested in trying to show them otherwise.

galangalalgol 2y ago
The experts did that specifically so we would regulate barriers to entry into existence. It isn't a mew trick. Regulatory capture takes many guises, "think of the": Children, Consumers, ... Under booked hotels we could put you in.
llm_trw 2y ago
OpenAI was smart enough to build a moat for itself in Europe. The EU was dumb enough to dig it for them.
- monksy 2y ago
  What is the value that OpenAI is bringing to the US right now? Mostly its being used to generate text that fit a query.
  - sensanaty 2y ago
    That's not true, it's also very useful when trying to defraud and scam people en-masse!
    - yimmothathird 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    What value does a google search provide?

no_wizard 2y ago

Specifically with AI I don’t want to experience the downside of innovation before we regulate because of how wide spread its use already is, and it’s problems have already become apparent. For example, it’s being used to job screen applicants even though we have proven that AI models still suffer from thing like racial bias. Companies don’t disclose how their models are trained to negate bias or anything like that either and that’s one example I remember off the top of my head

nottorp 2y ago
> it’s being used to job screen applicants even though we have proven that AI models still suffer from thing like racial bias I bet they also suffer from other biases that are harder to detect and maybe some biases we can't even imagine and thus control for.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- chfalck 2y ago
  Kind of like humans in that regard
  - petre 2y ago
    Except being able to process 1e9 more applications, thus massively more biased and discriminatory.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  So.....,just like humans?
  - killingtime74 2y ago
    That's the point though. It's illegal for humans to do things during hiring that are not illegal for AI to do as it stands now (all sorts of discrimination). We want to at least level the playing field.

monksy 2y ago

It's not that most people hate risk. It's that individuals whom are harmed by sociopathic individuals that exploit methodologies, techniques, and products to enrich, steal, and harm the population. (When I say that I mean financially, emotionally, socially, physically, etc). To add further insult to injury, defending ones self against these individuals is disproportionately impossible. Socially: Creating and cultivating a culture that screws up dating. Emotionally: Filter bubbles, and data analyitics to push proganda and motivate people in directions (cambridge). Additionally subjecting people to material to manipulate. Stealing: Scooter companies are actively stealing the public space to operate their business (sidewalks), endorsing their users to run over people on the sidewalk (also making it difficult to identify the individual), etc. Privacy wise: Companies are forcing you to give up your private info to live. (Retail tracking to individuals.. even accross multiple companies [see "The Retail Equation"])

pembrook 2y ago
I'm not insulting people who hate risk. For the stability and health of society, it's good that most people are that way. We need people who shake their fist at anything new or different to keep us sane (people like you it seems, from your laundry list of frustrations). But we also need the people who do like risk taking and new stuff, and there's less of them. So innovation is much more of a fragile thing than stasis. Even if you think society and human life in general can't be improved in any way, to just maintain the way things are now...will require many new innovations and people taking risk on new stuff. Your welfare, lifestyle, and security depends on the risk taking of others. So we should probably be careful about making it too hard for the folks taking risk (it's already hard enough). Trust me, the risk-averse folks will still be the dominant voice either way. Even this forum--which started as a community of risk-taking entrepreneurial types--is now dominated by the risk-averse majority.
- pyrale 2y ago
  > But we also need the people who do like risk taking and new stuff The issue with that is that risk is usually not borne by the people getting rewards.
- 2y ago

harimau777 2y ago

>> Most people aren't entrepreneurs and hate risk, so they pass regulation, and the market gets locked down so nothing new happens again I think that the bigger issue is that the people who suffer when the risk goes bad and the people who benefit when the risk goes well usually aren't the same people.

viraptor 2y ago

> You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason You missed most of the discussions about DMA on HN, I guess. There's always someone ready to say how EU will kill all innovation and make Google/Apple exit the market because they dare to question anything.

lofaszvanitt 2y ago

"before we've even had a chance to experience both the upside and downside, so the innovation never happens at all." ---- Let me laugh out loud. Those, who govern these companies know 10 years ahead how and what will happen. Bigdiks higher up has 10-20 year plans. And people talk about "before we had a chance to experience the upsides and the downsides". Get a grip on reality.

scarface_74 2y ago
Google didn’t know in 2006 where cell phones were headed. If they did, they wouldn’t have made an Android as a BlackBerry clone. No company can accurately predict where technology is headed a decade from now.
- lofaszvanitt 2y ago
  oakay
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    You ever read the first edition of Bill Gates “The Road Ahead” where he didn’t even mention the Internet? Google thinking the future of phones were BlackBerry clones? Palm CEO “The PC guys aren’t just going to walk in a figure this thing out” referring to the then rumored iPhone.
    - lofaszvanitt 2y ago
      Predigested bs for people to ruminate about. Rather watch Tom & Jerry, that has much more profound thoughts.
pembrook 2y ago
Yea, so wildly out of touch with reality. The governing elite are wizards of prediction! Sundar at Google knew LLMs were going to be huge after Google invented them, so that’s why they were first to market and… Oops. Maybe not? While it might make risk-averse types feel good to imagine the people in charge are all-knowing (see religion), the truth is the world is a chaotic and reflexive system of unpredictability. Scary, I know!

arp242 2y ago

> You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. You're commenting on an article doing exactly that. So that was not much of a struggle.

Xen9 2y ago

Makes no economical sense, but arguably the right response to not only AI, but every thing.

stemlord 2y ago

>Regulation usually gets trotted out after the downside of doing [new innovation] is experienced. This always happens, because doing something new always involves unknown risk. I would challenge "unknown"-- it very well seems like the risks have been known every time, they just don't give a shit >What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading regulators to pass this incumbent-cementing regulation before we've even had a chance to experience ... Sounds good to me? It's sociopathic and opportunistic to want to risk major socioeconomic issues for the mere chance of a corporate "innovation"

account42 2y ago

> Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to support competition instead. Actually pretty much all EU regulations and especially enforcement of those regulations gets pundits shouting that the EU is only trying to milk US megacorporations. > However, virtually every other piece of regulation does the opposite. Not true but even if so not all regulation concerns itself with monopolies. GDPR in particular is about user rights and should therefore apply to everyone, same for similar kinds of regulations. If corporations cannot survive without violating you in every way possible then they should not be allowed to live. If anything is lacking it's enforcement against incumbents. > What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading regulators to pass this incumbent-cementing regulation before we've even had a chance to experience both the upside and downside, so the innovation never happens at all. Good. Not all "innovation" should happen. > Combine this with a rapidly aging demography in Europe, and I only see this trend increasing. If there's one thing old people hate, it's risk and doing new things. Again, good. Moving fast and breaking things at societal scale is not a good idea.