4 ms·

In terms of resources currently still available and if they put their will to it: perhaps. It might be an uphill battle, but it could still be possible. Howeve

In terms of resources currently still available and if they put their will to it: perhaps. It might be an uphill battle, but it could still be possible. However, given the current environment, it's impossible for this to happen, because the EU (which is largely equivalent with Europe in this context) is obsessed with regulating everything to death instead of creating opportunities for future prosperity. They're literally doing the exact opposite of what is needed.

ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
What resources are there? Could any company in the EU make the wafers needed to build GPUs for example?
- BjoernKW 2y ago
  Financial resources, mostly. The EU is still one of the richest regions in the world, the emphasis being on 'still' here. If they don't act now and if they don't act decisively, the EU will be economic backwater in a few years.
  - ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
    What type of financial resources? If you mean Euro balances - that is worth nothing in the context of what Europe can produce. If state currency could be converted to production capabilities, countries could just print money to increase production.
    - BjoernKW 2y ago
      Money. It's as simple as that. Europe (glossing over relatively minor regional differentials here) still is one of the richest places in the world. They just decided to use those resources for the wrong purposes. Again, it's as simple as that.
      - ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
        Money is only worth something on a personal level. Not on a societal level. A society can print as much money as they like. It does not add any capability to society.
drakonka 2y ago
I attended a conference on the AI Act recently and it gave me the impression that they are actively finding a good balance between regulation and encouragement of AI development. Regulation is intended to be strongest in a quite narrow set of use cases explicitly defined as high-risk. Low-risk use cases are, from what I understood, largely left alone. Of course there are lots of open questions and challenges with enforcement etc, but at least the spirit of the act seems sound to me. When I was listening to the talks, it seemed like the GDPR will have been more 'disruptive' in practice than the AI Act for the vast majority of developers.
- BjoernKW 2y ago
  > I attended a conference on the AI Act I find it quite baffling that there's even such a thing as an entire conference on a specific law. > Regulation is intended to be strongest in a quite narrow set of use cases explicitly defined as high-risk. Intention vs. implementation always seems to be a major issue with EU legislation. They always claim that these regulations are supposed to target "large companies" or a small number of cases, yet in reality it's usually the small companies and entrepreneurs that suffer while the supposed target audience of large players scoffs at these laws. Hence, I consider these claims to be outright lies intended to calm people down while the EU continues to collude with incumbents to further entrench their dominant position and smother any kind of change or innovation. > GDPR will have been more 'disruptive' in practice than the AI Act for the vast majority of developers Relevant EU representatives at the time claimed there not just wasn't any disruption due to GDPR, but that this regulation would even even spark innovation. Well, that turned out nicely ... The EU commissioner responsible literally claimed she could implement all GDPR requirements for a public website herself in a matter of just a few minutes. These people are as arrogant as they are clueless.
  - drakonka 2y ago
    > I find it quite baffling that there's even such a thing as an entire conference on a specific law. The AI Act is a big set of legislation which is interesting and impactful. Why would we not set dedicated time aside to talk about it? I think it would be more baffling if we didn't. As a developer in the EU having had to consider GDPR in our systems, I support GDPR and believe sometimes disruption is needed to safeguard individuals' interests. Similarly, as an AI developer in the EU I personally support the idea of regulating defined high-risk use cases of AI.

ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago

What resources are there? Could any company in the EU make the wafers needed to build GPUs for example?

BjoernKW 2y ago
Financial resources, mostly. The EU is still one of the richest regions in the world, the emphasis being on 'still' here. If they don't act now and if they don't act decisively, the EU will be economic backwater in a few years.
- ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
  What type of financial resources? If you mean Euro balances - that is worth nothing in the context of what Europe can produce. If state currency could be converted to production capabilities, countries could just print money to increase production.
  - BjoernKW 2y ago
    Money. It's as simple as that. Europe (glossing over relatively minor regional differentials here) still is one of the richest places in the world. They just decided to use those resources for the wrong purposes. Again, it's as simple as that.
    - ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
      Money is only worth something on a personal level. Not on a societal level. A society can print as much money as they like. It does not add any capability to society.

drakonka 2y ago

I attended a conference on the AI Act recently and it gave me the impression that they are actively finding a good balance between regulation and encouragement of AI development. Regulation is intended to be strongest in a quite narrow set of use cases explicitly defined as high-risk. Low-risk use cases are, from what I understood, largely left alone. Of course there are lots of open questions and challenges with enforcement etc, but at least the spirit of the act seems sound to me. When I was listening to the talks, it seemed like the GDPR will have been more 'disruptive' in practice than the AI Act for the vast majority of developers.

BjoernKW 2y ago
> I attended a conference on the AI Act I find it quite baffling that there's even such a thing as an entire conference on a specific law. > Regulation is intended to be strongest in a quite narrow set of use cases explicitly defined as high-risk. Intention vs. implementation always seems to be a major issue with EU legislation. They always claim that these regulations are supposed to target "large companies" or a small number of cases, yet in reality it's usually the small companies and entrepreneurs that suffer while the supposed target audience of large players scoffs at these laws. Hence, I consider these claims to be outright lies intended to calm people down while the EU continues to collude with incumbents to further entrench their dominant position and smother any kind of change or innovation. > GDPR will have been more 'disruptive' in practice than the AI Act for the vast majority of developers Relevant EU representatives at the time claimed there not just wasn't any disruption due to GDPR, but that this regulation would even even spark innovation. Well, that turned out nicely ... The EU commissioner responsible literally claimed she could implement all GDPR requirements for a public website herself in a matter of just a few minutes. These people are as arrogant as they are clueless.
- drakonka 2y ago
  > I find it quite baffling that there's even such a thing as an entire conference on a specific law. The AI Act is a big set of legislation which is interesting and impactful. Why would we not set dedicated time aside to talk about it? I think it would be more baffling if we didn't. As a developer in the EU having had to consider GDPR in our systems, I support GDPR and believe sometimes disruption is needed to safeguard individuals' interests. Similarly, as an AI developer in the EU I personally support the idea of regulating defined high-risk use cases of AI.