19 ms·
Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement
- vanderZwan 1y agoI admit that I am biased enough to immediately expect the AI agreement to be exactly what we need right now if this is how Meta reacts to it. Which I know is stupid because I genuinely have no idea what is in it.
- mhitza 1y agoThere seem to be 3 chapters of this "AI Code of Practice" https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-c... and it's drafting history https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-code-practice https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-code-pr... I did not read it yet, only familiar with the previous AI Act https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ . If I'd were to guess Meta is going to have a problem with chapter 2 of "AI Code of Practice" because it deals with copyright law, and probably conflicts with their (and others approach) of ripping text out of copyrighted material (is it clear yet if it can be called fair use?)
- jahewson 1y ago> is it clear yet if it can be called fair use? Yes. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/98089-federal-judge-rules-ai-training-is-fair-use-in-anthropic-copyright-case.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrig... Though the EU has its own courts and laws.
- dmbche 1y agoDistrict judge pretrial ruling on June 25th, I'd be surprised this doesn't get challenged soon in higher courts. And acquiring the copyrighted materials is still illegal - this is not a blanket protection for all AI training on copyrighted materials
- rpdillon 1y agoWhy is acquiring copyrighted materials illegal? You can just buy books in bulk under the first sale doctrine and scan them.
- dmbche 1y agoWhich is not what any of the companies did Anthropic ALSO get copyrighted material legally, but they pirated massive amounts first
- rpdillon 1y agoApologies, I read your original statement as somehow concluding that you couldn't train an AI legally. I just wanted to make it extra clear that based on current legal precedent in the U.S., you absolutely can. Methodology matters, though.
- thewebguyd 1y agoEven if it gets challenged successfully (and tbh I hope it does), the damage is already done. Blocking it at this stage just pulls up the ladder behind the behemoths. Unless the courts are willing to put injunctions on any model that made use of illegally obtained copyrighted material - which would pretty much be all of them.
- 1718627440 1y agoBut a ruling can determine that the results of the violation needs to be destroyed.
- zettabomb 1y agoAnthropic bought millions of books and scanned them, meaning that (at least for those sources) they were legally obtained. There has also been rampant piracy used to obtain similar material, which I won't defend. But it's not an absolute - training can be done on legally acquired material.
- GuB-42 1y agoIf France, fair use doesn't even exist! We have exceptions, which are similar, but the important difference is that courts decide what is fair and what is not, whereas exceptions are written in law. It is a more rigid system that tend to favor copyright owners because if what is seen as "fair" doesn't fit one of the listed exceptions, copyright still applies. Note that AI training probably fits one of the exceptions in French law (but again, it is complicated). I don't know the law in other European countries, but AFAIK, EU and international directives don't do much to address the exceptions to copyright, so it is up to each individual country.
- mikae1 1y ago> If France, fair use doesn't even exist! Same in Sweden. The U.S. has one of the broadest and most flexible fair use laws. In Sweden we have "citaträtten" (the right to quote). It only applies to text and it is usually said that you can't quote more than 20% of the original text.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- artursapek 1y ago[flagged]
- voidfunc 1y ago[flagged]
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoBeing evil doesn't make them necessarily wrong.
- vanderZwan 1y agoAgreed, that's why I'm calling out the stupidity of my own bias.
- paulddraper 1y agoInteresting because OpenAI committed to signing https://openai.com/global-affairs/eu-code-of-practice/ https://openai.com/global-affairs/eu-code-of-practice/
- nkmnz 1y agoOpenAI does direct business with government bodies. Not sure about Meta.
- somenameforme 1y agoAbout 2 weeks ago OpenAI won a $200 million contract with the Defense Department. That's after partnering with Anduril for quote "national security missions." And all that is after the military enlisted OpenAI's "Chief Product Officer" and sent him straight to Lt. Colonel to work in a collaborative role directly with the military. And that's the sort of stuff that's not classified. There's, with 100% certainty, plenty that is.
- jahewson 1y agoSam has been very pro-regulation for a while now. Remember his “please regulate me” world tour?
- nozzlegear 1y agoThe biggest player in the industry welcomes regulation, in hopes it’ll pull the ladder up behind them that much further. A tale as old as red tape.
- MPSFounder 1y ago[flagged]
- decremental 1y ago[dead]
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- renewiltord 1y ago[flagged]
- edhelas 1y agoSent from an iPhone probably having USB-C because of the EU.
- renewiltord 1y agoI charge my phone wirelessly. The presence of a port isn't a positive for me. It's just a hole I could do without. The shape of the hole isn't important. Besides, I posted from my laptop.
- ars 1y agoJust because they occasionally (and even frequently) do good thing, does not mean that overall their policies don't harm them own economies.
- myko 1y agoThe economy does not exist in a vacuum. Making number go up isn't the end goal, it is to improve citizens lives and society as a whole. Everything is a tradeoff.
- zeptonix 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- saubeidl 1y agoPlease don't use ableist language.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sorokod 1y agoPresumably it is Meta's growth they have in mind. Edit: from the linked in post, Meta is concerned about the growth of European companies: "We share concerns raised by these businesses that this over-reach will throttle the development and deployment of frontier AI models in Europe, and stunt European companies looking to build businesses on top of them."
- isodev 1y agoOf course. Skimming over the AI Code of Practice, there is nothing particularly unexpected or qualifying as “overreach”. Of course, to be compliant, model providers can’t be shady which perhaps conflicts with Meta’s general way of work.
- t0mas88 1y agoSure, but Meta saying "We share concerns raised by these businesses" translates to: It is in our and only our benefit for PR reasons to agree with someone, we don't care who they are, we don't give a fuck, but just this second it sounds great to use them for our lobbying. Meta has never done and will never do anything in the general public's interest. All they care about is harvesting more data to sell more ads.
- VWWHFSfQ 1y ago> has never done and will never do anything in the general public's interest I'm no Meta apologist, but haven't they been at the forefront of open-source AI development? That seems to be in the "general public's interest". Obviously they also have a business to run, so their public benefit can only go so far before they start running afoul of their fiduciary responsibilities.
- jahewson 1y agoThere’s a summary of the guidelines here for anyone who is wondering: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/introduction-to-code-of-practice/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/introduction-to-code-of... It’s certainly onerous. I don’t see how it helps anyone except for big copyright holders, lawyers and bureaucrats.
- cm2012 1y ago[flagged]
- Atotalnoob 1y agoThis all seems fine. Most of these items should be implemented by major providers…
- techjamie 1y agoThe problem is this severely harms the ability to release opens weights models, and only leaves the average person with options that aren't good for privacy.
- isoprophlex 1y agoI don't care about your overly verbose, blandly written slop. If I wanted a llm summary, I would ask an llm myself. This really is the 2025 equivalent to posting links to a google result page, imo.
- rokkamokka 1y agoIt is... helpful though. More so than your reply
- isoprophlex 1y agoTouché, I'll grant you that.
- 1y ago
- rockemsockem 1y agoI'm surprised that most of the comments here are siding with Europe blindly? Am I the only one who assumes by default that European regulation will be heavy-handed and ill conceived?
- andrepd 1y agoSo you're surprised that people are siding with Europe blindly, but you're "assuming by default" that you should side with Meta blindly. Perhaps it's easier to actually look at the points in contention to form your opinion.
- rockemsockem 1y agoI don't remember saying anything about blindly deciding things being a good thing.
- 9dev 1y agoMaybe the others have put in a little more effort to understand the regulation before blindly criticising it? Similar to the GDPR, a lot of it is just common sense—if you don’t think that "the market" as represented by global mega-corps will just sort it out, that is.
- Alupis 1y agoOur friends in the EU have a long history of well-intentioned but misguided policy and regulations, which has led to stunted growth in their tech sector. Maybe some think that is a good thing - and perhaps it may be - but I feel it's more likely any regulation regarding AI at this point in time is premature, doomed for failure and unintended consequences.
- 9dev 1y agoYet at the same time, they also have a long history of very successful policy, such as the USB-C issue, but also the GDPR, which has raised the issue of our right to privacy all over the world. How long can we let AI go without regulation? Just yesterday, there was a report here on Delta using AI to squeeze higher ticket prices from customers. Next up is insurance companies. How long do you want to watch? Until all accountability is gone for good?
- chvid 1y agoWhy does meta need to sign anything? I thought the EU made laws that anyone operating in the EU including meta had to comply to.
- AIPedant 1y agoIt's not a law, it's a voluntary code of conduct given heft by EU endorsement.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago> it's a voluntary code of conduct So then it's something completely worthless in the globally competitive cutthroat business world, that even the companies who signed won't follow, they just signed it for virtue signaling. If you want companies to actually follow a rule, you make it a law and you send their CEOs to jail when they break it. "Voluntary codes of conduct" have less value in the business world than toilet paper. Zuck was just tired of this performative bullshit and said the quiet part out loud.
- AIPedant 1y agoNo, it's a voluntary code of conduct so AI providers can start implementing changes before the conduct becomes a legal requirement, and so the code itself can be updated in the face of reality before legislators have to finalize anything. The EU does not have foresight into what reasonable laws should look like, they are nervous about unintended consequences, and they do not want to drive good-faith organizations away, they are trying to do this correctly. This cynical take seems wise and world-weary but it is just plain ignorant, please read the link.
- marcosdumay 1y agoIt's a chance for the business to try out the rules, so they can have an informed opinion and make useful feedback when the EU turn it into an actual law. And also so they don't have to scramble to compile once they suddenly become biding. But well, I wouldn't expect Meta to sign into it either.
- 1y ago
- paul7986 1y agoThe US, China and others are sprinting and thus spiraling towards the majority of society's destitution unless we force these billionaires hands; figure out how we will eat and sustain our economies where one person is now doing a white or blue (Amazon warehouse robots) collar job that ten use to do.
- vicnov 1y agoIs every sprint a spiral towards destruction?
- VWWHFSfQ 1y agoI think it is a legitimate concern in Europe just because their economies are getting squeezed from all sides by USA and China. It's a lot more in the public consciousness now since Trump said all the quiet stuff out loud instead of just letting the slow boil continue.
- lvl155 1y agoI have a strong aversion to Meta and Zuck but EU is pretty tone-deaf. Everything they do reeks of political and anti-American tech undertone.
- zeptonix 1y agoThey're career regulators
- zeptonix 1y agoGood. As Elon says, the only thing the EU does export is regulation. Same geniuses that make us click 5 cookie pop-ups every webpage
- cenamus 1y agoThey didn't give us that. Mostly non-compliant websites gave us that.
- spongebobstoes 1y agothat's deflecting responsibility. it's important to care about the actual effects of decisions, not hide behind the best case scenario. especially for governments. in this case, it is clear that the EU policy resulted in cookie banners
- dmix 1y agoThe the entire ad industry moved to fingerprinting, mobile ad kits, and 3rd party authentication login systems so it made zero difference even if they did comply. Google and Meta aren't worried about cookies when they have JS on every single website but it burdens every website user.
- mpeg 1y agoThis is not correct, the regulation has nothing to do with cookies as the storage method, and everything to do with what kind of data is being collected and used to track people. Meta is hardly at blame here, it is the site owners that choose to add meta tracking code to their site and therefore have to disclose it and opt-in the user via "cookie banners"
- myaccountonhn 1y agoThis thread is people going "EU made me either choose to tell you that I spy on you or stop spying on you, now I need to tell everyone I spy on them, fucking EU".
- saubeidl 1y ago
- vicnov 1y agoJust like GDPR, it will tremendously benefit big corporations (even if Meta is resistant) and those who are happy NOT to follow regulations (which is a lot of Chinese startups). And consumers will bear the brunt.
- ankit219 1y agoNot just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of practice is voluntary and goes beyond what is in the act itself. EU published it in a way to say that there would be less scrutiny if you voluntarily sign up for this code of practice. Meta would anyway face scrutiny on all ends, so does not seem to a plausible case to sign something voluntary. One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For open source, it's a very hard requirement[1]. > GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works. [1] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-releases-first-draft-of-general-purpose-ai-code-of-practice?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-r...
- dmix 1y agoLovely when they try to regulate a burgeoning market before we have any idea what the market is going to look like in a couple years.
- remram 1y agoThe whole point of regulating it is to shape what it will look like in a couple of years.
- dmix 1y agoRegulators often barely grasp how current markets function and they are supposed to be futurists now too? Government regulatory interests almost always end up lining up with protecting entrenched interests, so it's essentially asking for a slow moving group of the same mega companies. Which is very much what Europes market looks like today. Stasis and shifting to a stagnating middle.
- rchaud 1y agoKaplan's LinkedIn post says absolutely nothing about what is objectionable about the policy. I'm inclined to think "growth-stunting" could mean anything as tame as mandating user opt-in for new features as opposed to the "opt-out" that's popular among US companies.
- j_maffe 1y agoIt's always the go to excuse against any regulation.
- brap 1y ago[flagged]
- elliotec 1y agoEurope is the world‘s second largest economy and has the world‘s highest standard of living. I’m far from a fan of regulation but they’re doing a lot of things right by most measures. Irrelevancy is unlikely in their near future.
- bilekas 1y ago> It aims to improve transparency and safety surrounding the technology Really it does, especially with some technology run by so few which is changing things so fast.. > Meta says it won’t sign Europe AI agreement, calling it an overreach that will stunt growth God forbid critical things and impactful tech like this be created with a measured head, instead of this nonsense mantra of "Move fast and break things" Id really prefer NOT to break at least what semblance of society social media hasn't already broken.
- justlikereddit 1y agoThe more I read of the existing rule sets within the eurozone the less surprised I am that they make additional shit tier acts like this. What do surprise me is anything at all working with the existing rulesets, Effectively no one have technical competence and the main purpose of legislation seems to add mostly meaningless but parentally formulated complexities in order to justify hiring more bureaucrats. >How to live in Europe >1. Have a job that does not need state approval or licensing. >2. Ignore all laws, they are too verbose and too technically complex to enforce properly anyway.
- randomNumber7 1y agoI think you can only happily live in Europe if you are employed by the state and like all the regulations.
- brainzap 1y agothe Meta that uses advertising tooling for propaganda and elected trump?
- jleyank 1y agoI hope this isn't coming down to an argument of "AI can't advance if there are rules". Things like copyright, protection of the sources of information, etc.
- throwpoaster 1y agoEU is going to add popups to all the LLMs like they did all the websites. :(
- lofaszvanitt 1y agoNo popup is required, just every lobotomized idiot copies what the big players do.... Oh ma dey have popups. We need dem too! Haha, we happy!
- zdragnar 1y agoActually, it's because marketing departments rely heavily on tracking cookies and pixels to be their job, as their job is measured on things like conversations and understanding how effective their ad spend is. The regulations came along, but nobody told marketing how to do their job without the cookies, so every business site keeps doing the same thing they were doing, but with a cookie banner that is hopefully obtrusive enough that users just click through it.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoNo it's because I'll get fined by some bureaucrat who has never run a business in his life if I don't put a pointless popup on my stupid-simple shopify store.
- jungturk 1y agoIs it an option for your simple store to not collect data about subjects without their consent? Seems like an easy win. Your choice to use frameworks subsidized by surveillance capitalism doesn't need to preclude my ability to agree to participate does it? Maybe a handy notification when I visit your store asking if I agree to participate would be a happy compromise?
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoYou know it's possible to make good reasoned points without cramming in "<psuedo-marxist buzzword> capitalism" into a sentence for absolutely no reason. All I want is to not be forced to irritate my customers about something that nobody cares about. It doesn't have to be complicated. It is how the internet was for all of its existence until a few years ago.
- sandspar 1y agoMeta on the warpath, Europe falls further behind. Unless you're ready for a fight, don't get in the way of a barbarian when he's got his battle paint on.
- Ylpertnodi 1y ago> Unless you're ready for a fight, don't get in the way of a barbarian when he's got his battle paint on. You talking about Zuckerberg?
- sandspar 1y agoYeah. He just settled the Cambridge Analytica suit a couple days ago, he basically won the Canadian online news thing, he's blown billions of dollars on his AI angle. He's jacked up and wants to fight someone.
- isodev 1y agoAs a citizen I’m perfectly happy with the AI Act. As a “person in tech”, the kind of growth being “stunt” here shouldn’t be happening in the first place. It’s not overreach to put some guardrails and protect humans from the overreaching ideas of the techbro elite.
- Aeolun 1y agoAs a techbro elite. I find it incredibly annoying when people regulate shit that ‘could’ be used for something bad (and many good things), instead of regulating someone actually using it for something bad.
- isodev 1y agoYou’re too focused on the “regulate” part. It’s a lot easier to see it as a framework. It spells out what you need to anticipate the spirit of the law and what’s considerate good or bad practice. If you actually read it, you will also realise it’s entirely comprised of “common sense”. Like, you wouldn’t want to do the stuff it says are not to be done anyway. Remember, corps can’t be trusted because they have a business to run. So that’s why when humans can be exposed to risky AI applications, the EU says the model provider needs to be transparent and demonstrate they’re capable of operating a model safely.
- apwell23 1y agomain thing humans can't be excused is poverty. Which is the path EU is choosing. EU has been enjoying colonial loot for so long that they have lost any sense of reality.
- isodev 1y agoI feel a lot of emotions in your comment but no connection with reality. The AI Act is really not that big of a deal. If Meta is unhappy with it, it means it’s working.
- tim333 1y ago
- chrisweekly 1y agoNit: (possibly cnbc's fault) there should be a hyphen to clarify meta opposes overreach, not growth. "growth-stunting overreach" vs "growth (stunting overreach)"
- cakealert 1y agoEU regulations are sometimes able to bully the world into compliance (eg. cookies). Usually minorities are able to impose "wins" on a majority when the price of compliance is lower than the price of defiance. This is not the case with AI. The stakes are enormous. AI is full steam ahead and no one is getting in the way short of nuclear war.
- oaiey 1y agoBut AI also carries tremendous risks, from something simple as automating warfare to something like a evil AGI. In Germany we have still traumas from automatic machine guns setup on the wall between East and West Germany. The Ukraine is fighting a drone war in the trenches with a psychological effect on soldiers comparable to WWI. Stake are enormous. Not only toward the good. There is enough science fiction written about it. Regulation and laws are necessary!
- zettabomb 1y agoI don't disagree that we need regulation, but I also think citing literal fiction isn't a good argument. We're also very, very far away from anything approaching AGI, so the idea of it becoming evil seems a bit far fetched.
- HighGoldstein 1y agoAutonomous sentry turrets have already been a thing since the 2000s. If we assume that military technology is always at least some 5-10 years ahead of civilian, it is likely that some if not all of the "defense" contractors have far more terrifying autonomous weapons.
- ben_w 1y agoI agree fiction is a bad argument. On the other hand, firstly every single person disagrees what the phrase AGI means, varying from "we've had it for years already" to "the ability to do provably impossible things like solve the halting problem"; and secondly we have a very bad track record for knowing how long it will take to invent anything in the field of AI with both positive and negative failures, for example constantly thinking that self driving cars are just around the corner vs. people saying an AI that could play Go well was "decades" away a mere few months before it beat the world champion.
- mediumsmart 1y agoMeta knows all there is about overreach and of course they don’t want that stunted.
- SanjayMehta 1y agoNot a big fan of this company or its founder but this is the right move. The EU is getting to be a bigger nuisance than they are worth.
- constantcrying 1y agoThe problem with the EU regulation is the same as always, first and foremost they do not understand the topic and can not articulate a clear statement of law. They create mountains of regulations, which are totally unclear and which require armies of lawyers to interpret. Adherence to these regulations becomes a major risk factor for all involved companies, which then try to avoid interacting with that regulation at all. Getting involved with the GDPR is a total nightmare, even if you want to respect your users privacy. Regulating AI like this is especially idiotic, since currently every year shows a major shift in how AI is utilized. It is totally out in the open how hard training an AI "from scratch" will be in 5 years. The EU is incapable of actually writing laws which make it clear what isn't allowed, instead they are creating vague corridors how companies should arrive at certain outcomes. The bureaucrats see themselves as the innovators here. They aren't trying to make laws which prevent abuses, they are creating corridors for processes for companies to follow. In the case of AI these corridors will seem ridiculous in five years.
- thrance 1y agoEU-wide ban of Meta incoming? I'd celebrate personally, Meta and their products are a net negative on society, and only serve to pump money to the other side of the Atlantic, to a nation that has shown outright hostility to European values as of late.
- throwaway4220 1y agoThe world seems to be literally splitting apart, and Meta was a huge part of sowing discontent and stoking violence. I hope to move to Europe one day and I can use an open source LLM at that point