AI builders outnumber AI governance hires 7:1 in Europe
axipro.coI disagree with this being flagged. I'd be interested in seeing more data of this type, despite how "preposterous" it is from a tech perspective. I've long speculated that in Canada we're at about a 3:1 ratio for builders to AI regulators if you include government and NGOs, and the numbers in this link from Ireland are not far off that (and this link excludes government and NGO regulatory hires).
It's clear that outside of the US, there is an atypically large regulatory complex building compared to actual implementors.
I maintain my position that "being really, really stupid" should be added to the Guidelines for post flagging.
Should be a separate [stupid] flag, though.
The regulations are not meant to be productive, they are meant to reduce negative externalities.
It's like minimizing the cop-to-criminal ratio. Sure it would save money, but would society come out improved ?
Great, a totally vibe-coded website with a slop “analysis” about AI touting a meaningless ratio with zero context
What the heck is an AI governance role that would remotely require these kinds of ratios? PCI compliance is critical in payments and no one would suggest you need "PCI governance" in a single digit ratio to "builders".
Actual workers should outnumber "governance" bureaucrats by 100:1
the article implies that the perfect balance is 1:1; I want to believe this is just some sort of a ragebait-based PR strategy
Eventually they will. But whilst we adapt, it should be low
why?
Because there are no widely agreed upon standards for AI use. The EU AI Act still doesn't really solve this. Until we can all agree what safe and fair AI use is, companies will scramble to implement their own safeguards
if you don't make your own tech, standards will be defined by people that do
Who are these "we"?