Tech Giants Push To Dilute Europe's AI Act (reuters.com) 38
The world's biggest technology companies have embarked on a final push to persuade the European Union to take a light-touch approach to regulating AI as they seek to fend off the risk of billions of dollars in fines. From a report: EU lawmakers in May agreed the AI Act, the world's first comprehensive set of rules governing the technology, following months of intense negotiations between different political groups. But until the law's accompanying codes of practice have been finalised, it remains unclear how strictly rules around "general purpose" AI (GPAI) systems, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT will be enforced and how many copyright lawsuits and multi-billion dollar fines companies may face.
The EU has invited companies, academics, and others to help draft the code of practice, receiving nearly 1,000 applications, an unusually high number according to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity because they were not authorised to speak publicly. The AI code of practice will not be legally binding when it takes effect late next year, but it will provide firms with a checklist they can use to demonstrate their compliance. A company claiming to follow the law while ignoring the code could face a legal challenge.
The EU has invited companies, academics, and others to help draft the code of practice, receiving nearly 1,000 applications, an unusually high number according to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity because they were not authorised to speak publicly. The AI code of practice will not be legally binding when it takes effect late next year, but it will provide firms with a checklist they can use to demonstrate their compliance. A company claiming to follow the law while ignoring the code could face a legal challenge.
A bit of warning (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't believe it is as much a skawee thing as many, if there are even positive uses of AI in the future, will extreme brakes being put on it disadvantage the EU as well?
For me, I believe that the EU is regulating itself into irrelevance. https://www.reuters.com/breaki... [reuters.com]
https://oilprice.com/Energy/En... [oilprice.com]
I get a lot of pushback when I note that the EU does not innovate, it stands at the finish line and demands money from the winners and brands the extortion as protecting it's citizens.
I await my downmodding, as sometimes the truth pisses people off. But it remains the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been said before: The US encourages corporate growth (the government literally depends upon it) and silently buries the failures.
That philosophy makes it easy to attract money. The rest of world see that as the USA's saving grace, even as it causes damage.
In many ways, the EU is run like member states of the USA, badly. While the few high-performing states in the USA excuse the multitude of under-achieving states, that philosophy does not work in the EU: Its members are much more independent an
Re:A bit of warning (Score:4, Insightful)
Economic inequity is a massively good thing, because economic equity is something that Communists set as a goal, and even during most brutal years of Stalin's and Mao's rule failed to achieve. You want economic inequity based on productivity, as that allows for a functional economy rather than a crippled forcibly equalized one.
So the sum total of your argument is that: "You must learn to love being forcibly kept in poverty becaue: !!!Communism!!!" ?
EU is also in the area that is a massive net benefactor of global warming, as double cropping is increasingly being a thing across most of Central European Plain, while extremely cold winters of the north are being less hot. Italy's exceedingly unproductive third world quality areas becoming a bit dryer is a small price to pay for that. Pretty much only challenge in EU on climate change front is insane anti-industrial policy that is supposedly aimed at tackling it.
Oh, how cute! Luckyo thinks we just discovered double cropping.
As for legalized corruption, that's Southern European way of functioning. If you want to have nations like Italy and Greece onboard, you're going to have to allow at least some legalized corruption. For me as a northerner is looks horrific, but that's the nature of the beast.
You have legalized corruption in the US too though: Citizens United v. FEC [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
>"You must learn to love being forcibly kept in poverty becaue: !!!Communism!!!" ?
You're utterly ignorant of history. Communism is what keeps people in poverty. It's the economic inequity from rewarding those that are more successful that enables societies to pull most people out of poverty.
Notably, this is universal, and has been observed on all continents but Antarctica.
>Oh, how cute! Luckyo thinks we just discovered double cropping.
Clearly, you have, because you don't even know that temperate and c
Re: (Score:2)
Economic inequity is a massively good thing, because economic equity is something that Communists set as a goal, and even during most brutal years of Stalin's and Mao's rule failed to achieve. You want economic inequity based on productivity, as that allows for a functional economy rather than a crippled forcibly equalized one.
So the sum total of your argument is that: "You must learn to love being forcibly kept in poverty becaue: !!!Communism!!!" ?
Do you think that is actually what he is saying?
The planned economy of the Archetypal Communist nations does fail. If the McDonald's worker is paid the same as the person working on a oil drilling rig, how many people are going to work the difficult and dangerous jobs - much better and easier and safer to have your efforts as "You want fries with that?"
Trying to slam income inequity into a "You want poor people to starve" is Hyperbole, and makes for a bad argument. Indeed, the accusations of Luckyo ma
Re: (Score:2)
Economic inequity is a massively good thing, because economic equity is something that Communists set as a goal, and even during most brutal years of Stalin's and Mao's rule failed to achieve. You want economic inequity based on productivity, as that allows for a functional economy rather than a crippled forcibly equalized one.
So the sum total of your argument is that: "You must learn to love being forcibly kept in poverty becaue: !!!Communism!!!" ?
Do you think that is actually what he is saying?
That is literally what he is saying.
Umm, as much as you want to cast anyone you disagree with as the farthest right or left, depending on which group of insane people you've been told are the best, no he didn't remotely say that there are only two possibilities
Income equity is a driver of progress. Having income equality is a hinderance to progress.
A system that allows people to improve their condition will have people working to do just that. I worked hard and smart all my career, in large part to take care of my family. If my conditi
Re: (Score:2)
Russian communists practiced income equality: Not the same thing. While there were no performance bonuses (How many capitalist-economy workers get that?) or pay-scales, civil service workers had job-perks.
Thank-you for proving your ignorance: US Productivity has increased by 100% over 25 years, wages haven't done that. (A basic benefit of Capitalism has disappeared.) Most income brackets have experienced a 50% increase in wages. Effectively, families require 2 incomes to achieve equivalence (measured
Re: (Score:2)
It's always some dumb anglo trying to explain away reality by telling us about his delusions. No, communists did not practice income equality. Yes, there were performance bonuses.
They practiced equity of outcomes. You could have money, but there was nothing you could buy with it. There's in fact an old Soviet comedy about the subject, where main character defrauds a cooperative that was a front for an evil capitalist who was hiding money without spending any, and then finds out that he can't actually spend
Re: (Score:2)
"... doesn't mean wages increase alongside it"
Why not? The textbooks on Capitalism claim the exact opposite to you. A few capitalists like Henry Ford, made a point of increasing wages: It caused zero damage to his business. He's still seen as a hero of a capitalist system that paradoxically, refuses to follow his principles.
(The exception being: Limit product mix to 2 or 3 models, which effectively becomes Don't give consumers a choice. But corporatism is reviving that with click-through EULAs and enshitification.)
Re: (Score:2)
And like most communist activists in the West, you choose compare communist utopia that only exists in your head and is objectively anti-observable reality with robber capitalism dystopia that also exists only in your head and is objectively anti-reality.
Re: A bit of warning (Score:2)
Re: A bit of warning (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you say so.
Wow - I'd hate to get into a battle of wits with you. Oh, and I do say so.
Re: A bit of warning (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure you eat enough vegetables.
I loves me my taters.
Re: A bit of warning (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which country do I hate?
"rethoric the US uses to rationalize its corporate and military focused policies. "If you do not follow our way, you are doomed!" Maybe that is your love language.
Re: A bit of warning (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't hate countries. That is beneath my intellect. Cheers!
We are blessed to have you. And if I see far, it is because I'm standing on your shoulders.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, this is just the typical rationalisation rethoric the US uses to rationalize its corporate and military focused policies. "If you do not follow our way, you are doomed!" "We cannot be more like the EU with their consumer protective policies because *fill in preferred enemy here* will take over. " Are you sure of that?
Life is a competition. Remember how Russia won WW2? They would not have if the country you hate hadn't sent food and materiel to them, using the lend-lease program. Left alone, they would have provided old Adolph and his merry band with all the lebensraum they needed,
Another example is the atomic weaponry. Germany, US and Russia were working on atomic weaponry. It was physics, not magick. Pick who you wanted to develop it first.
Ant that returns us to my point that triggered you to a spittle flecked rage. If AI is as potentially dangerous as those who want to squelch AI, those who develop it first will win that battle. And it doesn't have to be 'murrica - you merely tipped off your hatred. Maybe it will be Russia, or some other country you would rather run the world.
Ah yes the famous offtopic post mod. Allow me. After being told that keeping up with technology is a rationalization that teh USA uses to impose it's military and corporate policies on the rest of the world by Fons_ de_spons (love that name by the way) I responded noting that life is a competition. Perhaps that bothers some people?
I then gave two examples. The first is in response to the statement of US military policy, using what seems to be the idea that Since US is not supposed to be involved in poli
Re:A bit of warning (Score:5, Insightful)
If AI is the threat that the EU believes it is, then restricting it will allow others without such lofty ideals to develop it, while the EU becomes the victim of the bad actors AI.
This is not about the EU feeling threatened by AI, this is about BigAI scraping other peoples content without compensation in complete disregard of TOS and while completely ignoring all copyright and IP laws. The EU is now preparing to hand out some hefty fines to the BigAI corporations who have been doing this (otherwise known as teaching corporate weasels that there are consequences to your actions in the only language corporate weasels understand) and BigAI is reacting to this by trying to pressure the EU to just make large scale content and IP looting legal. That's not going to happen, at least not in the EU, but they are free to try, and be told 'NON!!'.
Re: EU disaster (Score:2)
Re: EU disaster (Score:1)
Disconnect (Score:2)
Notice how, out of one side of the AI bigwigs' mouths you hear: "We need regulation to protect us from doomsday AI!"
And out of their other side, quietly: "We can't have regulation on the AI that actually exists and is sold!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's because "we need regulation" actually means "we need to pull up the ladder behind us by making it too cumbersome for competitors to start up"
So, actually both things are said out of the front of the mouth because they have the same purpose.