This is not voted on by Parliament but Parliament could object to it. Under Article 290 TFEU, delegated acts may supplement or amend non-essential elements of a legislative act. The original legislation must define the objectives, scope, content and duration of the delegation. Parliament and the Council retain control: they may revoke the delegation or object to an individual delegated act. Here we have the Commission using a delegated act, an administrative measure, to amend the European law, without meeting the prerequisites:

"Such delegated acts shall be adopted only on account of market developments and technical and scientific progress, and provided that there are scientifically grounded concerns over the safety of end-users removing or replacing the portable battery, or in cases where there is a risk that the removal or the replacement of the battery by end-users would be in violation of any product safety requirements provided for by applicable Union law."

This is a shady legal base for the current action, so this would blow up if scrutinised by Parliament or Council. Furthermore, there is really no point of communicating to trading partners in the way that it has been done, which casts a very bad light.

Kent Walker does not appear to know how to speak to European Commission authorities. This is so rude and disrespectful.

I wish the European Union would take similar action. Mario Draghi claimed he wanted to solve the issue 20 years ago. Time to revisit it.

https://competition-policy.ec....

Anyway, the task would be to make AutoCad obsolete and this requires substantial investment.

It looks more like a temporary issue, better work on compliance before the law comes back. After all the commission does not decide things:

Here is the legal base:
"The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 89 to amend paragraph 2 of this Article by adding further products to be exempted from the removability and replaceability requirements laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article. Such delegated acts shall be adopted only on account of market developments and technical and scientific progress, and provided that there are scientifically grounded concerns over the safety of end-users removing or replacing the portable battery, or in cases where there is a risk that the removal or the replacement of the battery by end-users would be in violation of any product safety requirements provided for by applicable Union law."

I don't think this condition for the delegated act is met.

It is also offensive that the EC informs the WTO TBT but not the European Parliament.

Yeah, there's two main problems:

1) People entering the wrong fields. For example, medicine really needs workers, at all levels, but not enough people are going into it.

2) Certain manual labour fields, like field work and home construction, because... well, I think we all know why there's a shortage of workers in those fields.

So how do we clean Copilot from windows computers and gemini from our android phone?

Or let's put this another way. Show of hands - how many of you "spicy autocorrect" / "stochastic parrot" people had "AI will start mass-solving Erdos problems" on your forecast list a couple years back? Huh, none of you? Fascinating!

Take some time to reassess your priors. And while you do so, understand that, yes, they are doing logic / reasoning.

They weren't discovered by an LLM. They were known conjectures that were proven by an automated solving language that was linked to an LLM.

I'll take "Things That Didn't Happen For $200", Alex.

Only a handful of meaningful proofs have ever been done by automated formal theorem solvers (the Four Colour Theorem being the most noteworthy example - but its proof is so long that humans can't verify it). By contrast, AI tools have been solving Erdos problems en masse. The majority of them just bog-standard commercial models. In case you need help, the only ones on that list that were hybrid (AI / non-AI) in the actual solving phase are:

1) AlphaProof / DeepMind Prover Agent / AlphaProof Nexus
2) Aristotle (Harmonic)
3) Seed Prover / Seed Prover 1.5 (ByteDance)
4) AxiomProver (Axiom Math)

In each of the above, LLMs come up with the lemmas / strategies but then use Monte Carlo search ("brute force") or likewise to investigate what they came up with. These are a minority. In the "AI Standalone" category, these "hybrid" tools made up only ~20% of attempts and successful proofs. Hybrid tools actually made more of a contribution in the "AI Alongside Literature" (related literature found afterward) and even more of the "AI Building On Literature" (related literature known beforehand) categories, which is the opposite of what people like you expect.

And even with the hybrid tools, it's still the AI doing the heavy lifting when it comes to strategy. Non-AI theorem solvers, again, don't have a spectacular record for churning out novel proofs to unsolved problems. Tools like Lean are more about mathematical rigour - a passive environment that requires a driver (a human or AI) to feed it actual strategies, lemmas, and proof steps. And no, you cannot brute force "strategy" in the vast majority of cases, which is, again, why automated theorem solvers don't have much of a track record with unsolved mathematical problems.

Let's take a random example: the disproof of the unit distance conjecture. It was solved purely by a general purpose commercial GPT model, not custom-trained to mathematics, with no external tools. Read what the various mathematicians reviewing / commenting on it have to say (sections #3 and onward). Seriously, don't skip reading them, actually read them. This was one of Erdos's favourite problems. He mentioned it commonly in his lectures. Essentially every mathematician working in complex geometry has thought about this problem. The approach that the model came up with was highly novel approach, based on CM-fields and class field towers.

I know you don't want to accept this reality, but it is the reality, so you better improve your ability to accept it,. The field of mathematics is already doing so.

Dang, link didn't post.

Ah, good 'ol "Model Collapse" theory that people have been pounding on for years now, predicting an imminent collapse in model capabilities. How has that been working out for you?

Except what the US is actually facing, at least in the near term, is just the opposite, a worker shortage.

You can't pay royalties to the entire internet. That's not realistic.

What is practical are things like taxes to fund public benefits, or requirements of returning things to the commons (for example, open models).

You're the one making the claim that modern frontier models still make this mistake (they don't), so how about you go to a frontier model, reproduce what you're claiming happens, and click the "share" button and post the link here?

Don't worry, I'll wait.