6 ms·

EU is not that big a deal anyway—its stupid AI regulations are keeping it back...

sschueller 2y ago
We don't allow AIs to make healthcare decisions, how is that a bad thing? How many people die in the US because their care was denied by an AI? IMO the EU regulation doesn't go far enough as it excludes banning AI for "military use".
- af78 2y ago
  Most EU countries banned certain categories of weapons like cluster munitions and antipersonnel mines, and as a result were unable to provide them to Ukraine. russia had no such qualms. Fortunately non-EU countries were able to supply Ukraine with these useful weapons: the EU was dependent on non-EU countries for its security. Had russia attacked a NATO country of the EU directly, said country would have been at a disadvantage. There have been reports of experiments with autonomous drones in the russia-Ukraine war. If the EU bans AI for military uses and our adversaries do not, I am afraid someday we will regret our mistake. But it will be too late.
  - lispm 2y ago
    If Russia commits war crimes, it is not necessary, that we follow.
    - af78 2y ago
      Agreed. None of what I mentioned necessarily implies a war crime, as far as I know.
      - lispm 2y ago
        Usage of mines for example...
  - ein0p 2y ago
    The hypothetical war in Europe would not be fought the same way it is fought in Eastern Ukraine, where anywhere between 30-60% of inhabitants are ethnically Russian, depending on locale, and Russia goes out of its way to not just methodically flatten things the way Israel flattened Palestine, which, by the way, is something they can do given their near endless supply of guided bombs. That's why you only have ~23K civilian casualties there after 3 years of war, about half of them attributable to Ukrainian strikes. Absolutely nobody in Moscow would care about collateral damage in e.g. Warsaw or Berlin. Nor for that matter anyone in Warsaw or Berlin would care about collateral damage in Moscow. So if this war were to actually break out, it'd spin out of control within weeks, and end with a full nuclear exchange, decimating Russia, and completely destroying Europe, which is much more densely populated.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      Have you seen what Mariupol looked like right after it was taken? Or what Bakhmut looks like today? The reason why Russia doesn't do this to Ukraine as a whole is because it is fighting this war with the ultimate goal of occupying and annexing Ukraine, so why would it destroy valuable resources like infrastructure and people needed to maintain it unless it serves some other goal? OTOH when it does serve some other goal (e.g. actually advancing the frontline), they have zero qualms about doing the same exact thing Israel does. I mean, Russia doesn't care all that much about lives of its own soldiers, given the kinds of tactics routinely used. How Europe would be treated would similarly depend on what the goals of the war from Russian perspective would be.
      - ein0p 2y ago
        You don't understand - that was the _minimal_ amount of damage typically inflicted in urban warfare of this intensity. Mariupol itself wasn't even carpet bombed because there were a lot of locals hiding in the basements. Nor was Bakhmut, for largely the same reason. Look at what we did in Mosul or Raqqa to see how we'd approach this. Flatten first, then move in. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/war-torn-mosul-july/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/war-torn-...
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    >russia had no such qualms. Neither does the Ukraine or the US.
  - goodpoint 2y ago
    > Most EU countries banned certain categories of weapons like cluster munitions and antipersonnel mines, and as a result were unable to provide them to Ukraine In one word: Good.
lpapez 2y ago
I guess we can agree to disagree. I hope to see even more "stupid AI regulation" in the future, fingers crossed. Recently I benefited from a "stupid regulation" mandating minimum Internet speeds carriers need to provide. How dare the policy makers interfere with the extortionate prices every single ISP in the market colluded to impose on the population. Muh liberty!
sunaookami 2y ago
Plus the undemocratic law making process and the unelected EU commission that is an authoritarian institution without anyone keeping it in check. The DSA is a censorship law with an added backdoor (look up "emergency response" and its implications). And tethered caps are just annoying ;)
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  The council, composed of representatives of governments elected in their own state, nominates the commission and proposes laws which are then voted by the parliament where deputies who have been directly elected by European sit. The parliament also confirms the commission. Care to explain how any of that is undemocratic?
  - kukkeliskuu 2y ago
    Not OP, but for starters, the referendum in my country about joining EU did not ask whether we should give our independence away to the EU. If people would have been told the actual goal, the referendum would have probably never passed. The EU is not a legitimate democracy.
  - lmm 2y ago
    The commissioners are appointed by their party - often the decisions are made by people who are not even directly elected themselves - and as such have no real accountability to the public. MEPs are slightly better but the overwhelming majority of them are "elected" via a party list system, which means that any individual can much more easily get elected by being popular with party bureaucrats than by being popular with the public that they supposedly represent. (But since the MEPs can't write laws, only vote on laws written by the commision, they're pretty irrelevant anyway). Even an extremely unpopular commissioner is at no risk of being voted out. For many years the UK's representative was disgraced former disgraced former MP Peter *Mandelson, one of the most hated people in the country, who could never have won any remotely democratic contest.
    - arrowsmith 2y ago
insane_dreamer 2y ago
LOL. I, for one, do _not_ welcome our new AI overlords in the US.

We don't allow AIs to make healthcare decisions, how is that a bad thing? How many people die in the US because their care was denied by an AI? IMO the EU regulation doesn't go far enough as it excludes banning AI for "military use".

af78 2y ago
Most EU countries banned certain categories of weapons like cluster munitions and antipersonnel mines, and as a result were unable to provide them to Ukraine. russia had no such qualms. Fortunately non-EU countries were able to supply Ukraine with these useful weapons: the EU was dependent on non-EU countries for its security. Had russia attacked a NATO country of the EU directly, said country would have been at a disadvantage. There have been reports of experiments with autonomous drones in the russia-Ukraine war. If the EU bans AI for military uses and our adversaries do not, I am afraid someday we will regret our mistake. But it will be too late.
- lispm 2y ago
  If Russia commits war crimes, it is not necessary, that we follow.
  - af78 2y ago
    Agreed. None of what I mentioned necessarily implies a war crime, as far as I know.
    - lispm 2y ago
      Usage of mines for example...
- ein0p 2y ago
  The hypothetical war in Europe would not be fought the same way it is fought in Eastern Ukraine, where anywhere between 30-60% of inhabitants are ethnically Russian, depending on locale, and Russia goes out of its way to not just methodically flatten things the way Israel flattened Palestine, which, by the way, is something they can do given their near endless supply of guided bombs. That's why you only have ~23K civilian casualties there after 3 years of war, about half of them attributable to Ukrainian strikes. Absolutely nobody in Moscow would care about collateral damage in e.g. Warsaw or Berlin. Nor for that matter anyone in Warsaw or Berlin would care about collateral damage in Moscow. So if this war were to actually break out, it'd spin out of control within weeks, and end with a full nuclear exchange, decimating Russia, and completely destroying Europe, which is much more densely populated.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Have you seen what Mariupol looked like right after it was taken? Or what Bakhmut looks like today? The reason why Russia doesn't do this to Ukraine as a whole is because it is fighting this war with the ultimate goal of occupying and annexing Ukraine, so why would it destroy valuable resources like infrastructure and people needed to maintain it unless it serves some other goal? OTOH when it does serve some other goal (e.g. actually advancing the frontline), they have zero qualms about doing the same exact thing Israel does. I mean, Russia doesn't care all that much about lives of its own soldiers, given the kinds of tactics routinely used. How Europe would be treated would similarly depend on what the goals of the war from Russian perspective would be.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      You don't understand - that was the _minimal_ amount of damage typically inflicted in urban warfare of this intensity. Mariupol itself wasn't even carpet bombed because there were a lot of locals hiding in the basements. Nor was Bakhmut, for largely the same reason. Look at what we did in Mosul or Raqqa to see how we'd approach this. Flatten first, then move in. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/war-torn-mosul-july/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/war-torn-...
- protomolecule 2y ago
  >russia had no such qualms. Neither does the Ukraine or the US.
- goodpoint 2y ago
  > Most EU countries banned certain categories of weapons like cluster munitions and antipersonnel mines, and as a result were unable to provide them to Ukraine In one word: Good.

lpapez 2y ago

I guess we can agree to disagree. I hope to see even more "stupid AI regulation" in the future, fingers crossed. Recently I benefited from a "stupid regulation" mandating minimum Internet speeds carriers need to provide. How dare the policy makers interfere with the extortionate prices every single ISP in the market colluded to impose on the population. Muh liberty!

sunaookami 2y ago

Plus the undemocratic law making process and the unelected EU commission that is an authoritarian institution without anyone keeping it in check. The DSA is a censorship law with an added backdoor (look up "emergency response" and its implications). And tethered caps are just annoying ;)

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
The council, composed of representatives of governments elected in their own state, nominates the commission and proposes laws which are then voted by the parliament where deputies who have been directly elected by European sit. The parliament also confirms the commission. Care to explain how any of that is undemocratic?
- kukkeliskuu 2y ago
  Not OP, but for starters, the referendum in my country about joining EU did not ask whether we should give our independence away to the EU. If people would have been told the actual goal, the referendum would have probably never passed. The EU is not a legitimate democracy.
- lmm 2y ago
  The commissioners are appointed by their party - often the decisions are made by people who are not even directly elected themselves - and as such have no real accountability to the public. MEPs are slightly better but the overwhelming majority of them are "elected" via a party list system, which means that any individual can much more easily get elected by being popular with party bureaucrats than by being popular with the public that they supposedly represent. (But since the MEPs can't write laws, only vote on laws written by the commision, they're pretty irrelevant anyway). Even an extremely unpopular commissioner is at no risk of being voted out. For many years the UK's representative was disgraced former disgraced former MP Peter *Mandelson, one of the most hated people in the country, who could never have won any remotely democratic contest.
  - arrowsmith 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago

LOL. I, for one, do _not_ welcome our new AI overlords in the US.