EU rules on AI models become enforceable. What's going to change?
euronews.com> EU rules on AI models become enforceable. What's going to change?
I can answer that. A higher regulatory overhead that means less money for R&D and decreased profit margins for companies here in the EU. That's what's going to happen.
If your sole business model depends on having no regulation then your business model is wrong and predatory.
Regulation doesn't hinder innovation, it's just that CEOs want that quick buck instead of being responsible and using regulation for their advantage.
> Regulation doesn't hinder innovation
Regulation can and often most certainly does hinder innovation -- but we might want that, because we get other things we value in return.
Regulation can sometimes also further innovation (one example being property rights). It depends on what is being regulated and how.
I never understand why people make obviously false claims when trying to argue a position. Instead of making the bad case, just try a bit harder, like you ask of these CEOs, and make a good one.
This is a bad counterpoint to "more regulation makes business harder". No regulation at all is probably the hardest business environment possible, but too much regulation is bad too.
Quantity of regulation isn't the point. It is quality. The right regulations are the right regulations. They mitigate risks and can encourage innovation. 'too much/too little' arguments are almost universally wrong.
This is a good counterpoint.
There is no AI regulation in the US and look at where we are, everyone depends on it, SOTA models are doing CSAM and porn deepfakes, and there's no regulation in the US to prevent this from happening
nor there is regulation to inform a user something uses AI or the dangers of being dependent on this magical oracle.
> There is no AI regulation in the US
Well, there's the White House blocking models on a whim. I guess that's the closest they'll get to something resembling regulation.
IIRC, using AI for CSAM and deepfake porn of people is already illegal in the US. That's not so much a lack of law as a lack of a means of enforcement. If you sell people pens and paper, its pretty difficult to stop them from using it to do distasteful things.
Too much regulation completely crippled the supersonic commercial flight industry.
So most people not wanting to hear sonic booms to benefit a small group of high wealth fliers is bad?
Or having mandatory security checks in place after frequent accidents on supersonic planes is bad...
The aviation industry must be one of the most regulated ones and it's entirely necessary to guarantee the safety of passengers and crew. You don't see anyone complaining about it except Boeing who failed QA in the past couple of years and killed some hundreds of people due to their oversight.
It used to be that living next to an airport was hell due to noise even without supersonic jets. Then they regulated noise levels and magically airplane companies started to find ways to mitigate noise levels. Such a coincidence that suddenly innovation just happened then and not ealirer. Who can guess why.
Not to forget anyone below them. Aviation is one of the fields which can affect others in lot more than just immediate surrounding area. I don't live under much of flight path but still dropping planes and even parts of the planes are really not optimal.
Perhaps if the industry had been allowed to develop, we'd have some freaky ass new and innovative tech that would've abated the problem. The world may never know!
So basically "if they were only allowed to cause harm then maybe maybe one day they might have found a way to on their own for no profit stop doing that harm"? Yeah, no thank you. Also, all of corporate history shows that without a government or public pushback "will stop doing harm" never happens.
The industry was allowed to develop, but not allowed to cause harm.
Substitute develop with innovate and perhaps the thrust of my comment becomes more clear?
My reply still works when s/develop/innovate/. Companies were (and are) allowed to innovate in order to solve the blocking problems around supersonic flight. They just weren't allowed to ignore those blocking problems.
It does, it hinders competition, its really good if you are already enstablished.
>"Regulation doesn't hinder innovation"
General statement that means zilch. Regulation depending on particular conditions can definitely curtail innovation or destroy it completely. Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart.
"Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart."
That is "reductio ad absurdum".
Identifying a fallacy but failing to address the argument doesn't negate the argument. This isn't high school debate class.
As I said, and others pointed out:
quality regulations don't curtail innovation.
I repeat, if your business model (which like the big majority of the entrepreneurial world is based on) is against regulation, it's wrong.
I don't think it's acceptable to have a billionaire tech bro dictating everything I do in my life while he gets rich by selling my data. One of the reasons regulation exists is to protect customers.
It's about damn time the business world moved away from the capitalism mindset that you NEED to explore the consumer to be successful. We have a lot of examples in Europe where if the company is even a bit less shitty and is sympathetic to the customer, it increases trust and brings in more revenue because your customers trust it.
True Scotsman?
I quoted what you said:
>"Regulation doesn't hinder innovation"
There is no "quality" in there. Try something better
Take the agricultural policies in the EU. They want to correct against overproduction while doing ecologically good but they interpolate of cause from past data. Now take the hottest year on earth to come in 2027 due to El Nino and that collapsing already strained expected harvest and you are looking at reasonable policies producing starvation, due to a inability to plan for a future not in the data yet.
And the whole glut is artifical in the first place because surplus wheat is not allowed to be used as energy, no it must rot in storage snd get "animal grade" before you can use it otherwise. The whole reason the eu system still works is because the traders largely ignore the central planing system, shipping things from high regulated eu countries to "i dont give a f**" countries, recertify it there and then reimport.
Also going to have to compete against SOTA AI augmented American companies. Which likely means using Chinese models.
Thank god Xi Jinpeng has the best interests of Europe at heart...
Just like Putin had Europe's best interest in mind regarding natural gas. At this point it's not a question of if Europe will become a puppet state but whose puppet state.
Mistral's already in the gutter, so not much change overall.
Thanks, now I don't need to even read the article!
Fortunately one can leave and live elsewhere...
> The rulebook sets out rules for all models that lack a specific purpose but can be adapted to a variety of use cases, requiring transparency on how a model was built, disclosure of any copyright-protected content used for training, and enough information for downstream users to understand the model's capabilities.
Re. disclosure: How do they want to do it? It seems to be similar to a “disclosure” used in students’ works: “Source: internet”…
No copyright intended
> Re. disclosure: How do they want to do it? It seems to be similar to a “disclosure” used in students’ works: “Source: internet”…
I think enforcing compliance with the law will be rather simple, just like it happened with GDPR, food labeling and many other regulations. But I wonder how will the disclaimers/declarations even be verified? The more I think about it the more I see open sourced (both dataset and weights) models as the only truly verifiable solution. And that makes it less attractive as a business foundation if. So we might end up with state-funded models working in similar fashion to museums it other culture/art institutions ensuring that original material creators are treated fair. But that will bring whole other set of challenges...
Do you think that states have enough skillful ppl to run such a comparison model?
I remember European efforts to create search engine, digital library. And a lot of EU-funded projects in Horizon 2000 are useless, just an expensive bureaucracy…
GDPR and cookie consent bars are pain in the a* and ux/ui failures.
What I mean - intention is good, realisation is often bad. (But I don’t think that rest of world would be better btw :)
/end-of-rant
realisation is done by individual sites. Instead of not collecting data, they chose banners.
Seems quite sensible - good to see an institution woth some weight finally enforcing such basic principles that should have been universal - but money is of course more important for AI companies, making such regulation necessary.
> In practice, for European consumers and businesses, that might mean some of the most advanced AI models launch in the EU a few weeks later than in other markets, as firms ensure they have done their compliance homework.
As models become more capable, this could have serious economic consequences. :(
Seems to be that the compliance homework is exactly the kind of busy work that AI is good at. AI companies could just get AI to do it.
Link to report AI https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-act-whi...
Related:
EU will mandate labels on authentic-looking AI content starting August 2
How does the EU plan to remain relevant in tech between the US and China?
Bet on CERN developing affordable antimatter production?
The doers vs talkers of who can make AI accurate and consistent will step forward.