3 ms·

It would be a misreading to think that example implies a more limited scope. The passage as a whole is pretty clear why they are they so broad: in order to avoi

It would be a misreading to think that example implies a more limited scope. The passage as a whole is pretty clear why they are they so broad: in order to avoid circumvention. I can understand why - it seems to be both a necessary yet unacceptable way to write laws! The passage continues: "To prevent the circumvention of this Regulation and to ensure an effective protection of natural persons located in the Union, this Regulation should also apply to providers and users of AI systems that are established in a third country, to the extent the output produced by those systems is used in the Union." An AI would come under this regulation even it's just the outputs that are used in the EU. Interesting to think about what that could lead to.

fc417fc802 1y ago
The EU can claim whatever it wants (much like the US does at times) but in reality only those doing business within the EU markets fall under their legal jurisdiction. Which I assume is exactly why that clause is in the license - to protect the ability to do business within the EU in the future without unexpectedly suffering liability for their public AI research. Conversely, I as an individual don't need to worry about it since I don't live there (similar stories for various other overly broad laws). I agree with you that the usefulness of that clause is suspect given how broad the wording of that law is. How do other companies publishing open models deal with this? For example Meta.