Window dressing!

This is a very welcome step, depending on what the regulation actually contains. Nobody wants to live in a world where real and fake cannot be distinguished.

overall wont this just hinder EU when the rest of the world (looking at you China and US) arent implementing any similar regulation

qwerty_leshoverall wont this just hinder EU when the rest of the world (looking at you China and US) arent implementing any similar regulation

I'll bet a buffalo nickel that this will not be last piece of legislation to regulate artificial intelligence, neither from the EU or any other jurisdiction.

Someone has to be first.

Eventually pretty much everyone will have laws on this matter, just like regulations for baby food, cosmetics, wine bottle labels, light bulbs, noodle package weights, motor vehicle traffic, coffee filters, crypto, whatever. Politicians write laws, that's what they do.

Honestly, even with all the legitimate concerns and controversy:
No nation should be 'reigning in AI' (like this).
why?

Any 'legislation and regulation' is just going to hinder open development, and put every consequence we're legitimately worried about squarely in the hands of specially-dispensated (quasi-)Nationalized industries and National Militaries.
IMO, 'stuff like this' is going to facilitate the precise catastrophes the people are wanting to avoid.

Unironically:

This is how Skynet starts

Like always, by the time they realize it really was time to hit pause it'll be long past a time when they can and terminators will be breaking up marriages, stealing artists and writer jobs, and killing military handlers to win more points.

qwerty_leshoverall wont this just hinder EU when the rest of the world (looking at you China and US) arent implementing any similar regulation

The US is pursuing it in a seemingly bipartisan fashion. I’d wager the EU pursing regulation provides a draft for other countries to adopt.

claesThe US is pursuing it in a seemingly bipartisan fashion. I’d wager the EU pursing regulation provides a draft for other countries to adopt.

That's often how laws evolve.

Workplace smoking ban? At least in the USA, it started in California at the local level in restaurants, then spread over time to other businesses and areas.

I remember some restaurateurs wailing that the cigarette ban would chase away their clientele and destroy their businesses ignoring the fact that some of the strongest proponents of the legislation were restaurant and bar workers who were subjected to second-hand cigarette smoke.

Today workplace smoking bans are commonplace in most industrialized nations and no one bats an eyelash if they see a non-smoking sign in a restaurant, bar, or nightclub.

Of course, it needs to be pointed out to some people that laws can and probably will be revised over time. The EU legislation will likely be amended at a future date.

cvaldesThat's often how laws evolve.

Workplace smoking ban? At least in the USA, it started in California at the local level in restaurants, then spread over time to other businesses and areas.

I remember some restaurateurs wailing that the cigarette ban would chase away their clientele and destroy their businesses ignoring the fact that some of the strongest proponents of the legislation were restaurant and bar workers who were subjected to second-hand cigarette smoke.

Today workplace smoking bans are commonplace in most industrialized nations and no one bats an eyelash if they see a non-smoking sign in a restaurant, bar, or nightclub.

Of course, it needs to be pointed out to some people that laws can and probably will be revised over time. The EU legislation will likely be amended at a future date.

I never understood why customers just couldn't choose a restaurant and / or bar that doesn't allow for smoking instead of banning it in said establishments.

Why_MeI never understood why customers just couldn't choose a restaurant and / or bar that doesn't allow for smoking instead of banning it in said establishments.

As I specifically pointed out, it wasn't about diner choice: the workplace smoking bans was about *EMPLOYEE* health.

A lot of restaurants had separate smoking and non-smoking indoor sections but that didn't help the employees who are forced to work all areas and expose themselves to smoke.

Few restaurants had imposed a voluntary sitewise non-smoking policy at the time for the reasons that the restaurateurs claimed. In order for widespread adoption, compliance must be mandatory. There were some restaurants that did not happily comply; there was no social media shaming at the time (late Eighties, early Nineties) but eventually everyone got onboard.

At the time, some people stopped eating out or patronized restaurants in other locations not covered by the regulations (or those that flaunted the regulation). Some restaurants maintained special outdoor smoking areas. Eventually the legislations became more restrictive as the public clamored for additional coverage.

As it relates to this A.I. legislation, few tech companies would voluntarily submit to these proposed controls. It's the same thing.

Same with things like roadway speed limits. Would you be happy if your next door neighbor drove down your street blowing through stop signs at 120 km/h with no headlights in the middle of the night? Just because they didn't want to "opt in" to silly traffic laws? Or your airplane pilot is operating the aircraft completely drunk?

For something like A.I., some website is going to say, "Hey, no posting deep fakes, 'kay? It's against our terms." Would you like extra spam in your inbox? Children's finger paints with lead?

For A.I., you can say "I won't use it" but someone else will. How would you feel is someone took your likeness and created a video of you slapping a kid in a wheelchair and posted the fake video to some site you don't use hosted in a country outside of the EU? I'm not saying this particular law addresses this particular example but someday, there will be regulations that cover stuff like what I just imagined. Coming sooner than you think but not soon enough for some.

Muser99Window dressing!

Lipstick on a pig?

LabRat 891No nation should be 'reigning in AI' (like this).

Could not disagree more. Unlike what computers and robotics have already done, AI represents a fundamental shift in the dynamic of how quickly and dramatically we can be replaced, or potentially harmed. AI shows great promise and potential for good, but like any amazing invention, there is equal potential for unpleasantness. We need to be VERY careful with this new invention. It is that potential danger that needs strict controls and regulations.

What's wrong with monotonous jobs being done faster by never tiring always right AI?

UpgrayeddWhat's wrong with monotonous jobs being done faster by never tiring always right AI?

That is not the issue. The problem is that AI is being used in ways that can be very disruptive to society.

lexluthermiesterCould not disagree more. Unlike what computers and robotics have already done, AI represents a fundamental shift in the dynamic of how quickly and dramatically we can be replaced, or potentially harmed. AI shows great promise and potential for good, but like any amazing invention, there is equal potential for unpleasantness. We need to be VERY careful with this new invention. It is that potential danger that needs strict controls and regulations.

I agree in sentiment about the far-reaching danger (and empathize with the feeling of "somebody, do something!")...
But I have not seen (in all of written history) a 'centralized approach' to addressing those kinds of concerns, ever 'work out' for The People.
All centralized regulation has (historically) proven to be capable of (in the foremost), is allowing favored-parties superior power and control. Be it military or industry (even, ministerial/papal).

Never forget: Any sufficiently useful/powerful tool is also implicitly useful as a weapon. (and vice versa)

A moderated and decentralized approach must be figured out, or we'll be looking at a scenario like WWI, except only a select-few combatants have Machine Guns, and someone already has the A-bomb. (and no party will have any idea how to effectively or responsibly use them)

John makes some excellent points here;
A few are worst case scenario, but most are plausible.

LabRat 891But I have not seen (in all of written history) a 'centralized approach' to addressing those kinds of concerns, ever 'work out' for The People.

We've never had a situation like this before in history. This is all new territory we're in, the potential for serious problems and even disaster is present in a way we have never faced before. Thus why many are very concerned. There is merit to the notion that controls for AI need to be in place.

lexluthermiesterWe've never had a situation like this before in history. This is all new territory we're in, the potential for serious problems and even disaster is present in a way we have never faced before. Thus why many are very concerned. There is merit to the notion that controls for AI need to be in place.

Can't disagree there.

IMO -in the same 'never before' vein, precisely how humanity addresses these threats will also have to be 'completely new'.

The 'best' starter-concept I can come up with would be an international competitive community, linked to each nations' civil regulatory bodies.
Basically, DEF CON crossed-over with the plot of Robot Jox.

LabRat 891Can't disagree there.

IMO -in the same 'never before' vein, precisely how humanity addresses these threats will also have to be 'completely new'.

The 'best' starter-concept I can come up with would be an international competitive community, linked to each nations' civil regulatory bodies.
Basically, DEF CON crossed-over with the plot of Robot Jox.

Or Mobile Fighter G Gundam

Real Steel

LabRat 891Honestly, even with all the legitimate concerns and controversy:
No nation should be 'reigning in AI' (like this).
why?

Any 'legislation and regulation' is just going to hinder open development, and put every consequence we're legitimately worried about squarely in the hands of specially-dispensated (quasi-)Nationalized industries and National Militaries.
IMO, 'stuff like this' is going to facilitate the precise catastrophes the people are wanting to avoid.

Unironically:

I disagree. Like you said, laws aren't meant to hinder. But they're meant to control. When laws hinder for no particular reason (motorway speed limits, khm), that's a problem. But without laws, there's no control, and without control, we have anarchy, which is only ever good for assholes.

Hope they remember to govern its megalomaniacal tendencies with ethical subroutines or it will try and kill us (as every ai has done so far). Fairly warned be thee says I.

AusWolfI disagree. Like you said, laws aren't meant to hinder. But they're meant to control. When laws hinder for no particular reason (motorway speed limits, khm), that's a problem. But without laws, there's no control, and without control, we have anarchy, which is only ever good for assholes.

You aren't wrong,
and I failed to convey my meaning properly in my first reply to this thread.

Moderate(d)
and
Decentralized
were the key words I only later used in a reply.

(side note: this has been thus far, the most polite and enjoyable 'back and forth' on a controversial topic, that I've ever participated in. Thank you :))

Like all the other laws before it, if the only consequence is a slap in the wrist, they won't give a damn what the law says.

The steam engines are evil!
They took our job!

WyeThe steam engines are evil!
They took our job!

I'd love it if machines could take all our jobs! Not working has been my career goal since I was born. :D

LabRat 891You aren't wrong,
and I failed to convey my meaning properly in my first reply to this thread.

Moderate(d)
and
Decentralized
were the key words I only later used in a reply.

(side note: this has been thus far, the most polite and enjoyable 'back and forth' on a controversial topic, that I've ever participated in. Thank you :))

I see your point now, and I agree. :) Centralisation is rarely good, and yes, this is definitely an enjoyable topic, probably because I can see huge pros and cons on both sides.

AusWolfI'd love it if machines could take all our jobs! Not working has been my career goal since I was born. :D


I see your point now, and I agree. :) Centralisation is rarely good, and yes, this is definitely an enjoyable topic, probably because I can see huge pros and cons on both sides.

not working is easy, you just get a really nice tent, buy some 2 quid cement blocks, go deep into a forest, plant several berry bushes, blackberry bushes are practically a weed and will grow easy. put your tent on the lets see... 40 quid worth of cement solid blocks should be a good enough foundation, maybe spend quadruple that to build yourself a mini concrete block fort. then just grab a mini solar panel charger, power banks, ereader, load it with books... you are set for a long time. I hope you like the taste of pigeons.

depends what you want in life. lmao

Space Lynxnot working is easy, you just get a really nice tent, buy some 2 quid cement blocks, go deep into a forest, plant several berry bushes, blackberry bushes are practically a weed and will grow easy. put your tent on the lets see... 40 quid worth of cement solid blocks should be a good enough foundation, maybe spend quadruple that to build yourself a mini concrete block fort. then just grab a mini solar panel charger, power banks, ereader, load it with books... you are set for a long time. I hope you like the taste of pigeons.

depends what you want in life. lmao

I was thinking more along the lines of machines doing all the menial work while most of us live on Universal Income, while those who aspire for more do the exciting stuff, like the design and maintenance of said machines.