6 ms·
What I don't see here is how the EU is actually defining what is and is not considered AI. > AI that manipulates a person’s decisions subliminally or deceptive
by _heimdall 2y ago
What I don't see here is how the EU is actually defining what is and is not considered AI.
> AI that manipulates a person’s decisions subliminally or deceptively.
That can be a hugely broad category that covers any algorithmic feed or advertising platform.
Or is this limited specifically to LLMs, as OpenAI has so successfully convinced us that LLMs really are Aai and previous ML tools weren't?
- dijksterhuis 2y agothe actual text in the ~act~ guidance states: > Exploitation of vulnerabilities of persons, manipulation and use of subliminal techniques techcrunch simplified it. from my reading, it counts if you are intentionally setting out to build a system to manipulate or deceive people. edit — here’s the actual text from the act, which makes more clear it’s about whether the deception is purposefully intended for malicious reasons > the placing on the market, the putting into service or the use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness or purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques, with the objective, or the effect of materially distorting the behaviour of a person or a group of persons by appreciably impairing their ability to make an informed decision, thereby causing them to take a decision that they would not have otherwise taken in a manner that causes or is reasonably likely to cause that person, another person or group of persons significant harm
- Bjartr 2y agoSeems like even a rudimentary ML model powering ad placements would run afoul of this.
- dijksterhuis 2y ago> In addition, common and legitimate commercial practices, for example in the field of advertising, that comply with the applicable law should not, in themselves, be regarded as constituting harmful manipulative AI-enabled practices. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/29/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/29/
- Ajedi32 2y agoBroadly speaking, I feel whenever you have to build into a law specific cave outs for perfectly innocuous behavior that would otherwise be illegal under the law as written, it's not a very well thought out law. Either the behavior in question is actually bad in which case there shouldn't be exceptions, or there's actually nothing inherently wrong with it in which case you have misidentified the actual problem and are probably needlessly criminalizing a huge swathe of normal behavior beyond just the one exception you happened to think of.
- HPsquared 2y agoIt's the style of law that says "Anything not explicitly permitted, is banned."
- bmicraft 2y agoFunny, I took away pretty much the opposite. That advertising is only "acceptable" because it been here for too long, but is otherwise equally ban-worthy for all the same (reasonable) reasons.
- campl3r 2y agoWe, as society, allow legacy implementations to exist all the time. This is one of these times.
- anticensor 2y agoThat is by design.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoEven ads without ML would run afoul of this
- kavalg 2y agoThe burden will be on proving "significant harm"
- dist-epoch 2y agoso "sex sells" kind of ads are now illegal?
- troupo 2y ago> What I don't see here is how the EU is actually defining what is and is not considered AI. Because instead of reading the source, you're reading a sensationalist article. > That can be a hugely broad category that covers any algorithmic feed or advertising platform. Again, read the EU AI Act. It's not like it's hidden, or hasn't been available for several years already. ---- We're going to get a repeat of GDPR aren't we? Where 8 years in people arguing about it have never read anything beyond twitter hot takes and sensationalist articles?
- scarface_74 2y agoMaybe if the GDPR was a simple law instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections and all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners it would be different.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoGDPR doesn't benefit anyone? Is that a joke?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- troupo 2y ago> Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law It is a simple law. You can read it in an afternoon. If you still don't understand it 8 years later, it's not the fault of the law. > instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections News flash: humans and their affairs are complicated > all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. Bonus points: who is responsible for the cookie banners. Double bonus points: why HN hails Apple for implementing "ask apps not to track", boos Facebook and others for invasive tracking, ... and boos GDPR which literally tells companies not to track users
- scarface_74 2y agoIt doesn’t matter what it requires, the point is as usual, the EU doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology. That partially explains the state of the tech industry in the EU. But guess which had a more deleterious effect on Facebook ad revenue and tracking - Apples ATT or the GDPR?
- vitehozonage 2y agoExactly what i thought too. Right now, for 10 years at least, with targeted advertising, it has been completely normalised and typical to use machine learning to intentionally subliminally manipulate people. I was taught less than 10 years at a top university that machine learning was classified as AI. It raises many questions. Is it covered by this legislation? Other comments make it sound like they created an exception, so it is not. But then I have to ask, why make such an exception? What is the spirit and intention of the law? How does it make sense to create such an exception? Isn't the truth that the current behaviour of the advertising industry is unacceptable but it's too inconvenient to try to deal with that problem? Placing the line between acceptable tech and "AI" is going to be completely arbitrary and industry will intentionally make their tech tread on that line.