Europe to vote on AI laws with potential 7% revenue fines The European Parliament is to debate legislation that could cement a divergent approach to regulating AI between the US, the UK and the EU. Proposals set to go before the legislative chamber in the world's richest economic trading bloc this week include a ban on real-time remote biometric identification systems in public …
@Andy The Hat
"Sod regulation and possible issues with AI if a few, very rich people can make more money out of it (or sausages)."
Aka not a bad thing. Those rich people only make money if they offer something the rest are willing to pay for. Some would have regulated the car out of existence. And you would be walking through horse muck when you crossed the road
"Those rich people only make money if they offer something the rest are willing to pay for."
That doesn't mean it's a wholly good thing free of negative side effects just because people are willing to pay for it. The tobacco industry is probably the biggest legal example I can think of.
@jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid
"That doesn't mean it's a wholly good thing free of negative side effects just because people are willing to pay for it. The tobacco industry is probably the biggest legal example I can think of."
Who said free of any negative side effects? You eat salt? Drive? Have a computer? And what is wrong with smoking? You do realise that people voluntarily take up smoking?
I interpreted your comment as the free market solving the problem. But I wanted to point out that free market solutions (or any kind of solutions actually) often come with negative side effects, which is where regulation or some other government action often has to step in to mitigate them.
Your examples for instance of driving, salt, computing and smoking. All things that people want to do, but where government action has to control negative side effects.
@jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid
"I interpreted your comment as the free market solving the problem"
Yes, thats about right.
"Your examples for instance of driving, salt, computing and smoking. All things that people want to do, but where government action has to control negative side effects."
Within what limits? Workable rules to reduce 3rd party harm makes sense but if someone wants to consume salt or smoke why should they be stopped? As I said some would have regulated the car out of existence.
This is a new technology and we dont know what uses it may have. It could burn out as useless. But only by people working on it and trying things out will we find out.
@AC
"But you say the market will decide such things Or people can make their own choice."
And informed of the risks people would make their own choices. But as this would bring about the situation of people not being informed and being exposed to a severe risk the regulation makes some sense. Yet it is regulation that stops the construction of enough homes in the UK. Increases energy costs and reduces the amount of energy we have. Costs jobs. Elsewhere in the world has caused food crises.
Government and regulation are necessary evils, but they are very destructive and need to be used with care.
If we're taking about Grenfell, that's become a case study on why the free market should not be trusted to deliver public safety without government oversight. The local authority were responsible for enforcement of the regulations but effectively transferred that responsibility to the contractors, who failed to do so.
@jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid
"The local authority were responsible for enforcement of the regulations but effectively transferred that responsibility to the contractors, who failed to do so."
You could have stopped at "The local authority were responsible for enforcement of the regulations". https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-state-failures-that-led-to-the-grenfell-tower-fire/
But do go on and tell me its the free markets fault for the states actions (council and government levels)
"But do go on and tell me its the free markets fault for the states actions (council and government levels)"
Well, now you've got me wondering how much lobbying of government was done by the building companies, resulting in the complex sequence of events that resulted in that disaster.
In the years leading up to Grenfell, the Government made cost savings in things like Building Control, by allowing the building companies to self test and self certify their materials against the the regulations. The Government savings meant there wasn't the resource to properly check what those companies were doing, they were trusted. It turns out that trust was misplaced. There is a lot of evidence that has been submitted to the inquiry (still running I think) from employees that claims the companies were deliberately and knowingly falsifying the tests to gain compliance certificates.
Back to the original article and the theme of government regulation: The free market can deliver, but left to itself, corners get cut in the interests of profit. When you don't properly regulate, things like Grenfell can be the tragic outcomes.
@jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid
"Well, now you've got me wondering how much lobbying of government was done by the building companies, resulting in the complex sequence of events that resulted in that disaster."
Possible. Not certain but if you concentrate power on a few then the corrupt will flow there and they will be the ones put under pressure of corrupting influence.
"the Government made cost savings in things like Building Control"
So that would be government cutting corners. The thing free market gets accused of (in your comment too).
"Back to the original article and the theme of government regulation: The free market can deliver, but left to itself, corners get cut in the interests of profit."
When corners are cut the private person or business cuts them loose for an improper job. People who want on the cheap might get in the bodge job people yet for the most part people choose those who do a good job. Government is slow moving by the limitation of them being few managing more than they can possibly understand
I think they're as happy about dodging the ban on "... biometric categorisation systems that place people in groups by gender, race, and ethnicity, for example, predictive policing". If there's one thing the Tories like more than stuffing large sums of taxpayer's money into the wallets of themselves and their cronies, it's injecting a nice big dose of racism and authoritarianism into law enforcement.
I have to say I much prefer the EU take on this.
Outcome based results, when you cant actually assess how it's coming to those results (as per the black box that most AI's are), are a direct path to dodgy outcomes, that support existing biases.
Policing, renting, financial aid, bank loans - the people involved in those roles all come with biases, and add in an AI trained on datasets that those people provide will clearly have the same biases. Good luck arguing your case if someone with a bias against you can point to an AI and say "See the AI says No too!"...
And I'm sure that all the companies ploughing billions into developing this software are going to spend lots of time and money making completely different systems specifically for the UK market, on it's different path with its different approach.....
Or maybe, you know, if you want to play at the global level, you have to meet the strongest standards, which the UK will no longer have any control over, no matter how much Sunak bleats about wanting to lead the world on this.
“If you want to play at the global level, you have to meet the strongest standards”
But if you are happy with a mere 87% of the global market, you can ignore the most stringent 13%. And that’s in 2022. By 2030, when this is really kicking in, it’s more like 92/8.
There’s very few businesses in the world for whom a TAM of 92% global GDP isn’t enough for them
The cake is smaller than you think. Do you think the developing world with its large population and jobs which mainly require manual labour is going to be stupid enough to replace people's jobs with machine-generated nonsense? That way lies civil turmoil.
No, this experiment is a luxury for the developed world.
@Howard Sway
"And I'm sure that all the companies ploughing billions into developing this software are going to spend lots of time and money making completely different systems specifically for the UK market, on it's different path with its different approach....."
Why? Instead they develop it outside the EU with their different approach. It is the EU walling itself off.
"Or maybe, you know, if you want to play at the global level, you have to meet the strongest standards"
No you dont. We dont apply the Chinese standards here. India's standards. Russia's. North Korea's. If the EU wants to wall itself off it can do, their choice.
Do you actually think any smarter or disruptive supernatural or extraterrestrial AI is going to give two hoots about whatever you think is appropriate with regard to them and their applications?
Tilting at windmills whilst the Postmodern Barbarian break through the Pearly Gates to sack worlds full of Troys and Romes, Round Tables and Magic Circles, Trilateral Commissions and Ponzi Unicorn Markets, does not bode well for humanity or presumptive human leadership in the future.
"The EU's proposed legislation sets out a definition of "high risk" in terms of health and safety or fundamental rights"
About time a standard was introduced -- and potentially a marked improvement on the GDPR approach, which specifies (but does not define) two levels "risk" and "high risk", leaving it to the party interested in the processing to determine the level of risk to the persons they want to process data about (something of a conflict of interest?).
Let's hope that [a] the definition is realistic, taking into account the huge diversity of circumstances of peoples, and [b] that, unlike the GDPR, the legislation actually gets policed sufficiently stringently to control the problem.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
