3 ms·

This is true, though it may not make sense commercially for them to offer an API that can't be used for workplace (business) applications or education.

by AlanYx 2y ago

qwertox 2y ago
I see what you mean, but I think that "workplace" specifically refers to the context of the workplace, so that an employer cannot use AI to monitor the employees, even if they have been pressured to agree to such a monitoring. I think this is unrelated to "commercially offering services which can detect emotions". But then I don't get the spirit of that limitation, as it should be just as applicable to TVs listening in on your conversations and trying to infer your emotions. Then again, I guess that for these cases there are other rules in place which prohibit doing this without the explicit consent of the user.
- runako 2y ago
  > I think that > I think this > I don't get the spirit of that limitation > I guess that In a nutshell, this uncertainty is why firms are going to slow-roll EU rollout of AI and, for designated gatekeepers, other features. Until there is a body of litigated cases to use as reference, companies would be placing themselves on the hook for tremendous fines, not to mention the distraction of the executives. Which, not making any value judgement here, is the point of these laws. To slow down innovation so that society, government, regulation, can digest new technologies. This is the intended effect, and the laws are working.
  - qwertox 2y ago
    Companies like OpenAI definitely have the resources to let some lawyers analyze the situation and at this point it should be clear to them if they can or can't do this. It's far more likely that they're holding back because of limitations in hardware resources. I use those words because I've never read any of the points in the EU AIA.
    - runako 2y ago
      They definitely do have the resources, but laws and regulations are frequently ambiguous. This is one reason the outcome of litigation is often unpredictable. I would wager this -- OpenAI lawyers have looked that the situation. They have not been able to credibly say "yes, this is okay" and so management makes the decision to wait. Obviously, they would prefer to compete in Europe if it were a no-brainer decision. It may be possible that the path to get to "yes, definitely" includes some amount of discussion with the relevant EU authorities and/or product modification. These things will take time.

This is true, though it may not make sense commercially for them to offer an API that can't be used for workplace (business) applications or education.

by AlanYx 2y ago

This is true, though it may not make sense commercially for them to offer an API that can't be used for workplace (business) applications or education.

qwertox 2y ago

I see what you mean, but I think that "workplace" specifically refers to the context of the workplace, so that an employer cannot use AI to monitor the employees, even if they have been pressured to agree to such a monitoring. I think this is unrelated to "commercially offering services which can detect emotions". But then I don't get the spirit of that limitation, as it should be just as applicable to TVs listening in on your conversations and trying to infer your emotions. Then again, I guess that for these cases there are other rules in place which prohibit doing this without the explicit consent of the user.

runako 2y ago
> I think that > I think this > I don't get the spirit of that limitation > I guess that In a nutshell, this uncertainty is why firms are going to slow-roll EU rollout of AI and, for designated gatekeepers, other features. Until there is a body of litigated cases to use as reference, companies would be placing themselves on the hook for tremendous fines, not to mention the distraction of the executives. Which, not making any value judgement here, is the point of these laws. To slow down innovation so that society, government, regulation, can digest new technologies. This is the intended effect, and the laws are working.
- qwertox 2y ago
  Companies like OpenAI definitely have the resources to let some lawyers analyze the situation and at this point it should be clear to them if they can or can't do this. It's far more likely that they're holding back because of limitations in hardware resources. I use those words because I've never read any of the points in the EU AIA.
  - runako 2y ago
    They definitely do have the resources, but laws and regulations are frequently ambiguous. This is one reason the outcome of litigation is often unpredictable. I would wager this -- OpenAI lawyers have looked that the situation. They have not been able to credibly say "yes, this is okay" and so management makes the decision to wait. Obviously, they would prefer to compete in Europe if it were a no-brainer decision. It may be possible that the path to get to "yes, definitely" includes some amount of discussion with the relevant EU authorities and/or product modification. These things will take time.