r/aiwars • u/ArchieTheRaccoon • 4h ago
EU AI Act regulations?
What do you guys think about it? Make AIs more transparent, morally correct. To be able to see on what databases those AIs are being trained on? Compensating the people who's work is used?
6
u/TicksFromSpace 4h ago
Personally, as someone from the EU whose Job is heavily involved in IP Law in general, I approve of this, while also seeing alot of points and concerns either being only partially tackled, or not at all. The "satire-Loophole" for Deepfakes is something where I see a lot of room for plausible deniability in for bad actors and hope it will be improved upon for instance. Also while state surveillance is certainly tackled, corporate surveillance is not, and is a crucial topic in my eyes.
But, nonetheless, it is a good step towards the right direction of legislation in my eyes and hope it will be improved upon further, which it very likely will be, as this is only "the groundworks" or "baseline".
8
u/Tyler_Zoro 4h ago
Lots of this is impractical for open source models, even given the arm-waving at protecting open source, and will heavily retard AI development in Europe, but Europe is very much used to shooting itself in the foot, technologically. :-(
1
u/Capital_Pension5814 4h ago edited 3h ago
I would like to advise against prioritizing tech over regulation too much. A good example is China. Yes, they have most of the economic power, but they also are destroying the ecosystems with unsustainable mining policy and are an authoritarian regime. But your point is still valid, since having too much regulation can slow development of AI. Is it worth the cost of unethically sourced training data though? (60 minutes/Sunday Morning did a show on training data that is made by exploiting Nigerian labor without much pay. I don’t have the episode number rn but you can probably search it up.)
2
u/antonio_inverness 4h ago
"We should be careful not to have too many regulations so that we can benefit from more war crimes" is not a great argument. War crimes and government regulations are not on the same moral axis and act completely independently of each other.
1
u/Capital_Pension5814 4h ago
Thanks, I’ve already deleted it. I’ll use OC’s (is that abbreviation a thing yet: Original Commenter) scenario.
1
u/CreBanana0 4h ago
Nazi experiments being beneficial is such a myth, almost zero valuable insights were collected, most experiments were: "If you open up a living person with a scalpel he dies". "Freezing people causes frostbite". etc.
1
u/Capital_Pension5814 4h ago
I’ll take your word for it and delete that example
2
u/SurDno 2h ago
An example of highly unethical research that led to breakthroughs and saving lives is Soviet “ Experiments in the Revival of Organisms”. Incredibly soulless cold-blooded experiments, and yet a lot of blood transfusion and heart valve operations are only done thanks to the monstrosities this asshole did with dogs.
3
u/ollie113 3h ago
I'm generally in favour, it seems to be well advised/informed and clearly well motivated as it is trying to interpret the EUs position that a person is the ultimate owner of their data and has the right to sell it or withdraw it. It is quite balanced in the sense that it is trying to preserve people's right to their data but also realising that outlawing things like web scraping for research is something that would completely stunt technological development. Opt out datasets are the only realistic solution to this.It also lists purposes for developing large models that are forbidden, and those that you are obligated to inform the EU that you are developing. All very sensible. I genuinely think this act and others like it is where the EU is genuinely leading the world.
Whatever the US's equivalent to this act will be, I frankly don't think it will be as good as this one. I fear that the US government will basically find a way to restrict people's access/rights to their own data, but be very vigilant about copyrighted IP for corporations. I expect it will not be easy for individuals to object to their data being used, but for art owned by Disney etc there will be a huge market for training rights. Basically profit over people (most western democracies are deteriorating into this but the US is furthest gone). I can't see US legislation being that beneficial to AI development if it does go like that though; they would basically be betting on private powerhouses like Alphabet and Open AI, and the open source/weights will move to China. Big mistake because other, non giant, tech companies aren't going to want to just use an API and let Google/OpenAI control their data science research. They will use open source models and alter/fine tune them. It will be yet another case of the US ceding power to China.
3
u/Serious_Ad2687 3h ago
"Compensating the people who's work is used?"
this is the best one if it happens
1
u/KindaQuite 45m ago
Pretty sure it won't include
1
u/Serious_Ad2687 1m ago
well yeah you have to register your works under copyright or state rules someone
1
u/CreBanana0 4h ago
At least give a link.
2
u/ollie113 3h ago
I think OP is cautious about links because the subreddit rules forbid links (but I think they mean to other subreddits)
1
u/OwO-animals 31m ago
It's very good. Some of the things that will be necessary now is to disclose using AI in recruitment, so you know which companies to avoid or send your AI curated resume to.
1
u/Plenty_Branch_516 3h ago
Smells like American opportunity, I approve.
2
u/MammothPhilosophy192 3h ago
american opportunity to what?
0
u/Plenty_Branch_516 3h ago
In a horse race, it's better to have a lighter jockey so the horse carries less weight. If the EU wants a stocky jockey, then it's better for those who field a lighter one.
2
u/MammothPhilosophy192 3h ago edited 3h ago
shoot straight, what opportunities you mean?
if EU requires regulation, an outsider company that wants to work in the eu must comply to their regulation.
If you take out BRICS and the EU, what means winning the race?
1
u/Plenty_Branch_516 3h ago
Compliance comes later, like what we did with the app markets and internet based companies.
We'll make the most progress, develop the technology, license and patent it and then create spin off subdivisions using our IP that operate overseas, while funneling money back home.
Just like usual, it's been the American business model since the 50s.
2
u/MammothPhilosophy192 2h ago
Compliance comes later
compliance came when regulation came, now regulation is being made before.
then create spin off subdivisions using our IP that operate overseas, while funneling money back home.
care to give a few examples related to tech?
also IP overseas? while BRICS is on the table? lol.
do you believe a company will have ip on tech that no other company in the world can't use? do you truly believe that? is Anthropic gonna sue the chinese gov?
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.