EU Competition Chief Defends AI Act After Macron's Attack (ft.com) 10
The EU's competition and digital chief has defended the bloc's landmark law on AI, saying the move would create "legal certainty" for tech start-ups building the technology, even as it comes under fire from critics including French President Emmanuel Macron. From a report: Margrethe Vestager told the Financial Times that the EU's proposed AI Act would "not harm innovation and research, but actually enhance it." That is because the legislation, for the first time, provides a clear set of rules for those building so-called foundation models -- the technology that underpins generative AI products such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, which can churn out humanlike text, images and code in seconds.
"[The AI Act] creates predictability and legal certainty in the market when things are put to use," said Vestager, the commission's executive vice-president who oversees competition and the EU's strategy dubbed "Europe fit for the digital age." She added: "If you do foundational models, but also if you want to apply foundational models, you know exactly what you are going to look for once it is put into use. It is important that you do not have any regulatory over-reach, that innovation and research is promoted again." Her defence of the AI Act comes after Macron argued the legislation risks leaving European tech companies lagging behind those based in the US and China.
"[The AI Act] creates predictability and legal certainty in the market when things are put to use," said Vestager, the commission's executive vice-president who oversees competition and the EU's strategy dubbed "Europe fit for the digital age." She added: "If you do foundational models, but also if you want to apply foundational models, you know exactly what you are going to look for once it is put into use. It is important that you do not have any regulatory over-reach, that innovation and research is promoted again." Her defence of the AI Act comes after Macron argued the legislation risks leaving European tech companies lagging behind those based in the US and China.
Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
When bureaucratic regulation tries to "predict what will be, and limit that", limits are almost universally so extreme that whatever it is that they seek to limit simply fails to be created at all.
This is a good case to point. There's basically no meaningful AI research done in EU, at least meaningful in a sense that it could compete with likes of US and PRC. This legislation ensured that if you're looking to research, you invest outside EU, where there are no onerous legal limitations and unknown legal interpretation of these legal limitations.
And considering how few actual people current AI research takes, it's now easier to just pay your staff to relocate than to test the legal limits.
This is an old age problem with European Empires. They tend to come from old noble blood (like the current head of Commission) and their primary cultural focus is maintenance of their own status vis a vis other European noble houses. Competing with outsiders is just not something that is culturally relevant in these circles, and it tends to show in the bureaucracies commanded by these people. Where EU bureaucracy likes to build a facade of being a very important "Empire of Good" as was put by another high ranking EU official in the past, regardless of what's underneath the facade.
Emperor that has no clothes is a European folk tale for a reason.
Re: Reality (Score:2)
Reality is that you can still suffer from AI macro attacks regardless of Macron being involved or not.
EU (Score:4, Insightful)
What was it that Michael Jackson VC guy said...?
"The EU is regulating products it doesn't have, which require research it isn't doing, on hardware it can't afford".
This regulation is frankly, ridiculous. Whilst some 'management' of AI research and products is likely a good thing, this isn't. The US system of "let the lawyers argue it out, and that'll do the regulating for us" is probably worse, but it allows for more research and product development. In that sense then, the US can expect more products to be created there, and so have more areas to neglect to regulate. The EU just won't have any such worries, as nothing much is going to happen here.
Re: (Score:2)
The US system of "let the lawyers argue it out, and that'll do the regulating for us" is probably worse, but it allows for more research and product development.
Doesn't that make the US system better in that it allows some innovation to happen at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This regulation is very good for Europeans. As well as protecting them from the abuse we have already seen start happening, it gives developers some legal certainty that what they develop won't be banned in future. It also makes EU AI products attractive exports, because the importer knows that they were developed to a high standard.
what it's really about (Score:4)
From NYT article about the law itself:
"Companies that make A.I. tools that pose the most potential harm to individuals and society, such as in hiring and education, would need to provide regulators with proof of risk assessments, breakdowns of what data was used to train the systems and assurances that the software did not cause harm like perpetuating racial biases. "
Was going to ask... (Score:2)
I had almost no clue what the original post is about. I know what they want me to think it's about, but saying "X is what it's going to do" is just about useless.
Also I have to laugh at all the governments who likely barely understand the technology in the first place are going to magically install all the regulations we'll ever need. And it won't cost us anything, or block anything useful.
Re: (Score:2)
A better long term approach is to substantially increase the personal penalties for the owners and operators due to any damages caused by a piece of equipment such as an AI.
Suppose you walk into a shop displaying pottery. You're carrying a surfboard, and you carele
Political double-speak (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying that the AI Act will spur innovation by providing legal certainty is like saying that China's censorship regime helps their publishing industry. It doesn't.
Vestager implies that without the AI Act, legal enforcement would be arbitrary and capricious. That's nonsense. Cynics may disagree, but Europe's various legal systems actually work fairly well.
Expect to see the EU left behind. Not only won't they be able to produce cutting-edge AI, their businesses won't risk using (American and Chinese) AI to automate routine tasks because the penalties are so severe (10% of global revenues).