3 ms·

It is a fact that companies like Apple, Meta etc are not bringing AI technology to the EU specifically because the regulations are not clear of their obligation

It is a fact that companies like Apple, Meta etc are not bringing AI technology to the EU specifically because the regulations are not clear of their obligations. And if they don't comply it is a ridiculous and unprecedented fine of 10% of global revenue.

troupo 2y ago
> specifically because the regulations are not clear of their obligations. "unclear obligations": - do not use people's data without their consent - disclose and document your training data Of course it's "unclear" to companies like Facebook who opted everyone on their platform in to training their AI models by default. Apple's "AI" is coming to all users everywhere eventually. As many of their products it's rolled out to US, English-speaking, rest of the world, in that order. And it won't even fully ship to the US until sometime next year. Their "boohoo EU" is marketing and PR bullshit aimed at gullible morons. > And if they don't comply it is a ridiculous and unprecedented fine of 10% of global revenue. It's a fine up to 10% of global revenue. And that number can only be reached when the company willingly and willfully continues to break the law
- threeseed 2y ago
  Even the pro-privacy groups disagree with you. The (AI) Act leaves too much to the discretion of the Commission, secondary legislation or voluntary codes of conduct https://ecnl.org/news/packed-loopholes-why-ai-act-fails-protect-civic-space-and-rule-law https://ecnl.org/news/packed-loopholes-why-ai-act-fails-prot... This is the problem with the DMA and AI acts. The specifics are not written into law. Everything is left up to the EU Commissioner to decide as each case presents itself. Which makes it impossible for companies to predict what their decisions will be. And why would they take the risk with such massive fines on the table. This kind of regulatory uncertainty is toxic to business. Also Apple didn't just not release Apple Intelligence in the EU. They've geo-blocked it so you specifically can't use it even in English. They would only do this for legal reasons.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > The specifics are not written into law. If all specifics were written into the law: - people would complain about government overreach and that government dictates technological solutions - no laws would ever be written because there are so many aspects to consider, and it's impossible to predict the future Facebook, for instance, could easily start with complying with the two bullet points I posted. They don't, and they fight the EU in courts claiming they have god-given right to user data. And yet you pretend that these companies are somehow victims. They are not. > Which makes it impossible for companies to predict what their decisions will be. This is PR and marketing bullshit. EU Commission literally talks to all the involved and interested parties, listens to their positions and invites them to present theirs. > They would only do this for legal reasons. Ahahhaha. Of course not.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      > If all specifics were written into the law This approach works just fine in Australia which is renowned for having the best consumer protection regime in the world. It's just harder to do in EU/US when there isn't an appetite for pro-consumer regulations. And it's hilarious that you think that having to talk to the EU Commission to determine what is the law is somehow good. Businesses need certainty and predictability. Everything the EU regime is not.
      - troupo 2y ago
        > And it's hilarious that you think that having to talk to the EU Commission to determine what is the law is somehow good. No, it's not hilarious. This is literally what industry says it wants: instead of dictates by uncaring government you get a dialog with the industry that shapes the policy and lets the authorities adjust their approach.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sureIy 2y ago
I disagree. To me it looks like Apple is trying to put the EU into bad light. They have already said they’ll bring AI to European countries in 2025 but for the whole summer the news was “the EU won’t let Apple bring AI to the masses.” Even my mother told me about it. They are a trillion dollar company, it’s not like they don’t know what is and isn’t allowed by the law.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  How can they safely bring it when they don’t know what regulation they precisely will have to deal with? It seems like instead of both sides pointing fingers they could have talks in earnest on what are the requirements for AI on personal devices in the EU. Some decision can’t be simply “we’ll know it when we see it” by the authorities
  - sureIy 2y ago
    OpenAI did it so I don’t see why Apple couldn’t. They process data on the device and already have the Siri precedent, which receives, stores and analyzes data from every invocation. I don’t think there’s anything inherently new and unknown as far as data is concerned.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      The regulations apply completely differently to OpenAI. Since (a) they are a provider and not a deployer of AI systems and (b) they are no classified as one of the DMA gatekeepers.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

troupo 2y ago

> specifically because the regulations are not clear of their obligations. "unclear obligations": - do not use people's data without their consent - disclose and document your training data Of course it's "unclear" to companies like Facebook who opted everyone on their platform in to training their AI models by default. Apple's "AI" is coming to all users everywhere eventually. As many of their products it's rolled out to US, English-speaking, rest of the world, in that order. And it won't even fully ship to the US until sometime next year. Their "boohoo EU" is marketing and PR bullshit aimed at gullible morons. > And if they don't comply it is a ridiculous and unprecedented fine of 10% of global revenue. It's a fine up to 10% of global revenue. And that number can only be reached when the company willingly and willfully continues to break the law

threeseed 2y ago
Even the pro-privacy groups disagree with you. The (AI) Act leaves too much to the discretion of the Commission, secondary legislation or voluntary codes of conduct https://ecnl.org/news/packed-loopholes-why-ai-act-fails-protect-civic-space-and-rule-law https://ecnl.org/news/packed-loopholes-why-ai-act-fails-prot... This is the problem with the DMA and AI acts. The specifics are not written into law. Everything is left up to the EU Commissioner to decide as each case presents itself. Which makes it impossible for companies to predict what their decisions will be. And why would they take the risk with such massive fines on the table. This kind of regulatory uncertainty is toxic to business. Also Apple didn't just not release Apple Intelligence in the EU. They've geo-blocked it so you specifically can't use it even in English. They would only do this for legal reasons.
- troupo 2y ago
  > The specifics are not written into law. If all specifics were written into the law: - people would complain about government overreach and that government dictates technological solutions - no laws would ever be written because there are so many aspects to consider, and it's impossible to predict the future Facebook, for instance, could easily start with complying with the two bullet points I posted. They don't, and they fight the EU in courts claiming they have god-given right to user data. And yet you pretend that these companies are somehow victims. They are not. > Which makes it impossible for companies to predict what their decisions will be. This is PR and marketing bullshit. EU Commission literally talks to all the involved and interested parties, listens to their positions and invites them to present theirs. > They would only do this for legal reasons. Ahahhaha. Of course not.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    > If all specifics were written into the law This approach works just fine in Australia which is renowned for having the best consumer protection regime in the world. It's just harder to do in EU/US when there isn't an appetite for pro-consumer regulations. And it's hilarious that you think that having to talk to the EU Commission to determine what is the law is somehow good. Businesses need certainty and predictability. Everything the EU regime is not.
    - troupo 2y ago
      > And it's hilarious that you think that having to talk to the EU Commission to determine what is the law is somehow good. No, it's not hilarious. This is literally what industry says it wants: instead of dictates by uncaring government you get a dialog with the industry that shapes the policy and lets the authorities adjust their approach.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sureIy 2y ago

I disagree. To me it looks like Apple is trying to put the EU into bad light. They have already said they’ll bring AI to European countries in 2025 but for the whole summer the news was “the EU won’t let Apple bring AI to the masses.” Even my mother told me about it. They are a trillion dollar company, it’s not like they don’t know what is and isn’t allowed by the law.

EasyMark 2y ago
How can they safely bring it when they don’t know what regulation they precisely will have to deal with? It seems like instead of both sides pointing fingers they could have talks in earnest on what are the requirements for AI on personal devices in the EU. Some decision can’t be simply “we’ll know it when we see it” by the authorities
- sureIy 2y ago
  OpenAI did it so I don’t see why Apple couldn’t. They process data on the device and already have the Siri precedent, which receives, stores and analyzes data from every invocation. I don’t think there’s anything inherently new and unknown as far as data is concerned.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    The regulations apply completely differently to OpenAI. Since (a) they are a provider and not a deployer of AI systems and (b) they are no classified as one of the DMA gatekeepers.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]