4 ms·

> 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 sensationa

by 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 ago
Maybe 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 ago
  GDPR 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 ago
    It 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?
    - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
      The EU just prioritises protection for its citizens over tech industry profits. They are also not opposed to ad revenue and tracking; only that people must consent to being tracked, no sneaky spying. I'm quite happy for tech to have those restrictions.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee.
        Kbelicius 2y ago
        > The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee. And? With GDPR the EU decided that private data cannot be used as a form of payment. It can only be voluntarily given. Similarly to using ones body. You can fuck whoever you want and you can give your organs if you so choose but no business is allowed to be payed in sex or organs.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves? But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you? Facebook isn’t sharing your data to others. Ad buyers tell Facebook “Put this ad in front of people between 25-30 who look at pages that are similar to $x on Facebook”
robertlagrant 2y ago
The briefing on the Act talks about the risk of overly broad definitions. Why don't you just engage in good faith? What's the point of all this performative "oh this is making me so tired"?
_heimdall 2y ago
Sure, I get that reading the act is more important than the article. And in reading the act, I didn't see any clear definitions. They have broad references to what reads much like any ML algorithm, with carve outs for areas where manipulating or influencing is expected (like advertising). Where in the act does it actually define the bar for a technology to be considered AI? A link or a quote would be really helpful here, I didn't see such a description but it is easy to miss in legal texts.
pessimizer 2y ago
> Again, read the EU AI Act. It's not like it's hidden, or hasn't been available for several years already. You could point out a specific section or page number, instead of wasting everyone's time. The vast majority of people who have an interest in this subject do not have a strong enough interest to do what you have claim to have done. You could have shared, right here, the knowledge that came from that reading. At least a hundred interested people who would have come across the pointing out of this clear definition within the act in your comment will now instead continue ignorantly making decisions you disagree with. Victory?

by troupo 2y ago

scarface_74 2y ago

Maybe 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 ago
GDPR 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 ago
  It 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?
  - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    The EU just prioritises protection for its citizens over tech industry profits. They are also not opposed to ad revenue and tracking; only that people must consent to being tracked, no sneaky spying. I'm quite happy for tech to have those restrictions.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee.
      - Kbelicius 2y ago
        > The EU right now is telling Meta that it is illegal to give users the option of either ads based on behavior on the platform or charging a monthly subscription fee. And? With GDPR the EU decided that private data cannot be used as a form of payment. It can only be voluntarily given. Similarly to using ones body. You can fuck whoever you want and you can give your organs if you so choose but no business is allowed to be payed in sex or organs.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        That’s just the problem. Meta was going to give users a choice between paying with “private data” or paying money. The EU won’t let people make that choice are you saying people in the EU are too dumb to decide for themselves? But how is your data that you give to Facebook “private” to you? Facebook isn’t sharing your data to others. Ad buyers tell Facebook “Put this ad in front of people between 25-30 who look at pages that are similar to $x on Facebook”

robertlagrant 2y ago

The briefing on the Act talks about the risk of overly broad definitions. Why don't you just engage in good faith? What's the point of all this performative "oh this is making me so tired"?

_heimdall 2y ago

Sure, I get that reading the act is more important than the article. And in reading the act, I didn't see any clear definitions. They have broad references to what reads much like any ML algorithm, with carve outs for areas where manipulating or influencing is expected (like advertising). Where in the act does it actually define the bar for a technology to be considered AI? A link or a quote would be really helpful here, I didn't see such a description but it is easy to miss in legal texts.

pessimizer 2y ago

> Again, read the EU AI Act. It's not like it's hidden, or hasn't been available for several years already. You could point out a specific section or page number, instead of wasting everyone's time. The vast majority of people who have an interest in this subject do not have a strong enough interest to do what you have claim to have done. You could have shared, right here, the knowledge that came from that reading. At least a hundred interested people who would have come across the pointing out of this clear definition within the act in your comment will now instead continue ignorantly making decisions you disagree with. Victory?