EU businesses want a pause on AI regulations so they can cope with unregulated Big Tech players French AI business Mistral on Thursday announced an initiative called “AI for Citizens,” which it says offers a way to work with governments and public institutions to transform public services using AI. "It’s clear that artificial intelligence will have significant and lasting impact not only on companies, but also on …
They shouldn't get their hopes up for the latter cause it isn't happening anytime soon, so they'll have to figure something out. They passed the GDPR and thought restricting data flows would get the U.S change surviellence laws more to their liking, several years in and nothing has changed.
California launched CCPA off the back of the EU gdpr.
Further to that, many US companies (particularly multinationals) have committed to following GDPR/CCPA nationally.
https://thoropass.com/blog/compliance/gdpr-us-equivalent/
And from:
https://gdprlocal.com/global-data-protection-regulation-how-gdpr-sets-the-international-standard/#:~:text=The%20GDPR%20has%20inspired%20similar,high%20standard%20of%20data%20protection.
"3. How has the GDPR influenced global privacy laws?The GDPR has inspired similar laws globally, including Brazil’s LGPD, China’s PIPL, and updated frameworks in Japan and India. Many organisations adopt GDPR principles globally to streamline operations and demonstrate a high standard of data protection."
California has no control over 3 letter agencies and their survellience practices which is specifically what I was referring to (nor local police and their ALPR obsession apparently).
They're also not able to regulate beyond their boarders, and because of this and the shady nature of some of these companies Californian's data is still sold by in and out of state data brokers. Finally, tech companies can be ordered to retain information by the federal government reguardless of Calfornia law.
It's no secret the EU had hope threatening tech companies access to data would bring the U.S to the table on U.S surveliience practices. Indeed, Biden even tried to set up an administrative review board (which had no real power) for EU citizens who's data the NSA had collected.
States may very well adopt their own regulation, but I am not holding my breath on a national level especially under the current administration who I have no doubt would attempt to undermine all but the weakest restrictions on AI. He's already gutted the FTC and the Senate thankfully removed the 10 year ban on state regulation of AI from the "Big Beautiful Bill"....for now.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/hundreds-of-data-brokers-might-be-breaking-state-laws-say-privacy-advocates/ar-AA1HpOGo
You seem to be very, very confused about how laws work. They're not there to make it _impossible_ to break them (ie. do something people agreed on is evil or not desirable). They are there so that when people still break them there's a legally defined way to punish them for that.
"urging EU leaders to delay the enforcement of the AI Act by two years for the sake of European competitiveness."
Because regulation restricts development, so the EU must decide if they want EU business to compete in AI or not. It is perfectly fine to say they should not compete and the regulation is worth more but then they will likely be left behind by others who are not regulated out of existence.
The problem I see is the EU wants to have these great and successful innovators like the US but wants to regulate them so hard they cannot exist.
THe EU thinks about the consequence before they happen. US is no longer innovating really - IT was more innovative thirty years ago.
Now most "innovation" is about how to hoard more data and how to use them against citizens to extract as much money as possible without them revolting - and data can allow for "reprogramming" citizens as well, when used cunningly.
Meanwhile unregulaed social network brought western civilazation on the verge of collapse. Ineffctive anti-trust laws created huge molochs with profits that rival with states, and believe they are above any law, and governmentes must abide to their rules, not viceversa. Almost anyone carries with them theier personal spying/tracking device, controlled by two companies only - moreover US ones.
The damage done are under anybody eyes, eyes willingly to see and not blinded by money or selfishness. It's no longer time to let business "move fast and break things" .- because broken things might be very important and then irreparable.
Locking the stable doors after the horse bolted it's increasingly stupid. Especially if you need Heracles then to clean the stable from all the shit left.
@kmorwath
"THe EU thinks about the consequence before they happen. US is no longer innovating really - IT was more innovative thirty years ago."
Google was created in 1998.
Facebook was created in 2004.
The Raspberry Pi created in 2012.
Those are the first 3 I thought of. Yet the advancements of web, PC's, Mobile tech, storage, image technology and vastly more would disagree with you.
"Now most "innovation" is about how to hoard more data and how to use them against citizens to extract as much money as possible without them revolting"
There is a whole history of revolting as authorities try to rob them blind. As for innovation in data, yes. Exploring ways of taking those almost worthless little bits of information, gathering it into vast piles and trying to make it useful is innovation. Just as vast numbers of websites benefit from the existence of search engines where the vast amount of useless data can be ignored to sift for the highly beneficial information that can improve lives.
"Meanwhile unregulaed social network brought western civilazation on the verge of collapse"
When? We didnt have the Arab spring in the west. We have seen social networks collapse and even google couldnt break into that space with all its money and talent.
"Ineffctive anti-trust laws created huge molochs with profits that rival with states, and believe they are above any law, and governmentes must abide to their rules, not viceversa."
Thats going well isnt it? The government was caught out imposing the ministry of truth in the US and in Europe and beyond they keep trying to find ways of fining the companies. Do note that these private companies do not have to be used but people CHOOSE to use them.
"Almost anyone carries with them theier personal spying/tracking device, controlled by two companies only - moreover US ones."
I see we agree on this one. As I already said- "It is perfectly fine to say they should not compete and the regulation is worth more but then they will likely be left behind by others who are not regulated out of existence." and the US didnt over-regulate at the start and so the businesses were able to be created! And people want these devices! People want this stuff, as proven by them being so damn commercially viable.
"Locking the stable doors after the horse bolted it's increasingly stupid"
And as a result we should stop at the horse and cart because the development of travel beyond that would be locking the stable doors after the horse has bolted.
I didn't say innovation has stopped. I said there was far more innovation thirty years ago, and far more competition. Today most innovation is not targeted at improving people's life, is aimed at using them more.
Facebook is not innovation. It's exactly just data hoarding and behaviour modificatin using technologies invented before. Without all that social madness, the world would be better.
Google is not innovating since it made public its search engine. Android was bought, and it's still Linux + Java. And then worked hard to stifle innovation and avoid competition.
The Pi took advantage of cheaper hardware. Is it a new CPU? Is it a new OS? Good idea, better than many others, sure, but not incredible innovation - computer boards did exist before. And anyway the Pi, is a UK innovation, not a US one. And many "US" innovations came from Europeans....
> Yet the advancements of web, PC's, Mobile tech, storage, image technology and vastly more would disagree with you.
What advancements? Somewhat faster processors? Somewhat larger RAM and disks? Some more pixels in screens and CMOS sensors? All of them incremental - and we fight vulnerabilities thar aren't really addressed, just "patched".
> gathering it into vast piles and trying to make it useful i
Useful for whom? The citizens, or a small elite who uses it to bend citizens to their will, be it selling more Chinese-made tat, or ensure the rules are written for their exclusive advantage? What do you get back from all the data you let them hoard? A few "free" applications?
It's not processing more data you find more innovation.
> When?
Just look at USA today.... it might collapse, irreversibily. I hope not, but that's where we got.
> The government was caught out imposing the ministry of truth in the US and in Europe
Actually, in US only for now, and in some European countries like Russia or Hungary. And that's exactly what I wish we could avoid.
> beyond they keep trying to find ways of fining the companies
And what government shoud do when companies break the rules voted by the citizens' representatives? When companies got the right to be above the law?
> Do note that these private companies do not have to be used but people CHOOSE to use them.
Often people have no choice - if my bank requires an app and it can work only on a Google or Apple controlled phone, I have no choice. Sure, I could renounce to have a bank account... ooops, my company refuses to pay me with cash or a cheque.
> And as a result we should stop at the horse
If Watt, Stephenson and Benz had analyzed hoarded data only, they would have tried to obtain a horse with six or eight legs, that would eat its own manure. They woudn't have invented the steam engine, the train, or the internal combustion engine and the car. But they would have convinced that six legs horse was possible, and to invest large amount of money to obtain one.
And when "innovation" can have far reaching and devastating effects, it's perfectly right to think *before* than try to repair *later*, when it could be too late. Even if that means some rich people won't get extremely rich in little time, poor lads.
@kmorwath
"I didn't say innovation has stopped. I said there was far more innovation thirty years ago, and far more competition."
And I disagreed. And for competition there is now more of the world out of poverty and competing. For example China.
"Today most innovation is not targeted at improving people's life, is aimed at using them more."
Some of it is about using people more and some is for improving lives, how has it changed?
"Facebook is not innovation"
Yes it is. You may not like it but it is. If you discount innovation just because you dont like it then you will pretend there isnt any but you are wrong. And that people do like and use it in masses is why it exists.
"Google is not innovating since it made public its search engine."
You really are either lying or unaware. They revolutionised online maps, serious contributions in R&D and computing technologies. Android mobiles, AI, large data computing you dont seem to realise the vast amounts they do.
"The Pi took advantage of cheaper hardware."
INNO-FREAKING-VATION. Dude seriously you are tanking your argument hard. And as a result handed cheaper smaller technology that is in use domestically, educationally and in god knows how many projects. But yes its a UK innovation you got me there.
"What advancements? Somewhat faster processors? Somewhat larger RAM and disks? Some more pixels in screens and CMOS sensors? All of them incremental "
YES!!! Incremental improvements including SSD technologies and faster/larger/better tech is innovation.
I have made it half way through your post and it seems you do not recognise what innovation is nor the extent of innovation. I am not sure what criteria you are applying to accept an innovation. I am going to leave the response there but if there is some other point you would like me to reply to do reply. I am not trying to be arsy, the problem is up to that point you are just plain wrong
*FYI: I am not the one to downvote if that matters
"Because regulation restricts development"
OK, exactly what rules are restricting AI in the EU at the moment?
Rather than sweeping generalisations, if people can actually identify rules that do/might stop innovation then it's possible to amend those, or agree regulatory sandboxes. I know this because I am a regulator, and for all the whining about red tape, when we ask business "what are we doing that holds you back?" the chorus of whining suddenly reverts to back-of-the-class mumbling with few if any tangible cases being put forward.
If the companies concerned want change (or indeed to avoid new regulations) then perhaps they need to be specific, and politicians can consider the benefits, disbenefits and risks of what they're asking for.
You seem to have replied to my comment without replying on the thread.
"OK, exactly what rules are restricting AI in the EU at the moment?"
The identified problem is in the article and I quoted it- the AI Act. Quoting from the article- The Act aims "to make sure that AI systems used in the EU are safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory and environmentally friendly." Some of its provisions came into force as of August 1, 2024, but most don't apply until August 2, 2026.
"Rather than sweeping generalisations, if people can actually identify rules that do/might stop innovation then it's possible to amend those, or agree regulatory sandboxes."
All of them, that is what regulation does. We tend to agree that we need some regulatory safeguards to protect us but the more that gets piled on the less innovation can happen. The serious point that people get wrong is that you cannot generally identify rules that stop innovation because the innovation is the discovery of something new we didnt know about, and the regulations prevent it. This misunderstanding leads to people thinking regulation is good, and asking what unknown improvement would have happened if we didnt stop its discovery.
"I know this because I am a regulator, and for all the whining about red tape, when we ask business "what are we doing that holds you back?" the chorus of whining suddenly reverts to back-of-the-class mumbling with few if any tangible cases being put forward."
What can we use AI for? This new thing which is improving in some ways, is showing limitations in others and world wide is being explored as a great unknown. To turn the question back on you- what innovation has not happened and not been discovered because of the regulations? It is an impossible question because nobody has explored it due to regulations.
If you want to see the impact you have look at the EU's envy of search engine and social media technology from the US, which came from low regulation, and see that the EU isnt even capable of that regulatory freedom to make the next big thing (see AI Act before knowing what AI could even do).
I am trying to frame this as agnostic as I can, people do make the argument for more regulation. But factually it must be understood that it comes at a cost.
Tangentially here is an example of food being regulated in the UK- https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/heres-why-there-is-no-economic-growth
A cursory internet search tells me I would not want to eat an Impossible Foods vegan burger.
Harvard blog | Dr Frank Lipman blog | Reddit posts complaining of food intoxication
Therefore regulation works.
@Dan 55
"A cursory internet search tells me I would not want to eat an Impossible Foods vegan burger."
I doubt this will surprise you but I wouldnt want to eat one either. I wouldnt eat a lot of the vegetarian imitation foods but then I choose not to buy them. That doesnt mean others dont want it, such is the variety of life and the free market.
"Harvard blog": Why is that a reason to block?
"Dr Frank Lipman blog": Looks like a promo for his favourite brand.
"Reddit posts complaining of food intoxication": I can only hope our food regulation is based on something more solid than reddit.
"Therefore regulation works."
4 years of faffing and if the reasons are anything like the above I dont get why it would be delayed.
@Dan 55
"Why, do you think if people get ill from food it's a free market win?"
Who is ill? Looking at those links it was 2 moaning fools talking about how their preferred food substitute is better for 'reasons' and reddit. I am sure you can find people complaining about the effects of coffee but we still drink it.
@AC
"You obviously know nothing about the awful food quality here in the USA, and how it directly impacts health and life expectancy."
I have heard of this. And apparently this is something Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is against, yet a lot of the voices (particularly on the caring left) seem to hate the guy. I would have thought that was something the caring left could agree with him on?
Quoting from the article- The Act aims "to make sure that AI systems used in the EU are safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory and environmentally friendly."
And that's a problem because?
You think we should trade some growth for AI that is unsafe? Non-transparent? Discriminatory? Environmentally harmful? The superior growth the US economy has enjoyed over Europe is largely down to the tech sector, and that tech growth has significantly exacerbated income inequality in the US. If the EU (and hopefully UK) put in place some decent guardrails that stop tech companies doing stuff that benefits them at the expense of the rest of the economy then I'm all for that, and I'll forgo the growth.
@AC
"And that's a problem because?"
You would need to reread my comment and be more specific about what part you dont understand.
"You think we should trade some growth for AI that is unsafe? Non-transparent? Discriminatory? Environmentally harmful?"
I am going to quote myself here- "I am trying to frame this as agnostic as I can, people do make the argument for more regulation. But factually it must be understood that it comes at a cost.". As I have pointed out we dont know what we can or not do with AI. It is an unknown which is being explored.
Interestingly in your original comment you said-
"OK, exactly what rules are restricting AI in the EU at the moment?"
and
"I know this because I am a regulator, and for all the whining about red tape, when we ask business "what are we doing that holds you back?" the chorus of whining suddenly reverts to back-of-the-class mumbling with few if any tangible cases being put forward."
So you have answered your question. Which just so happens to be the point I am trying to get across.
"that tech growth has significantly exacerbated income inequality in the US"
And income inequality is irrelevant. Some of the most equal countries in the world are people being so damn poor they are in actual poverty, vs unequal but rich countries where they dont use actual poverty measures but instead 'relative' poverty because even the poor are rich.
"If the EU (and hopefully UK) put in place some decent guardrails that stop tech companies doing stuff that benefits them at the expense of the rest of the economy then I'm all for that, and I'll forgo the growth."
And that is what I was saying about having to decide if you want the benefits of growth which is balanced against the benefits of regulation. It is a trade off. So if the EU wants to regulate and others regulate less the EU cannot really complain about not being competitive in this sector. Going back to what I said about search engines and social media where the EU complains about not having their own but regulating it so it doesnt get made.
>As I have pointed out we dont know what we can or not do with AI.
Indeed. By the same token, you cannot know what a psychotic will do with a gun, but most societies (US excepted) try to keep guns out of the hands of psychotics for a reason, and that through regulation of gun ownership. Perhaps a better thing to ask is what we should or should not be "innovating"/doing with AI, or any other technology not what we can or can not. The "regulation prevents/impedes innovation" mantra is such bollocks. What people who resort to it usually mean is that whether innovations are dangerous and damaging or not is of no interest to them and they want to make money off it regardless. Anyone who opposes regulations to ensure, for example, transparency in the workings of technology which is already being used to choose targets to kill in an ongoing international conflict likely doesn't have anything useful to provide society -- from a moral standpoint.
@Citizen of Nowhere
"Indeed. By the same token, you cannot know what a psychotic will do with a gun, but most societies (US excepted) try to keep guns out of the hands of psychotics for a reason, and that through regulation of gun ownership"
Wow! So you are claiming the regulations existed before the invention of the gun? We dont know what can be created and what AI can do so what do we regulate it from? And what about the psychotics who create regulation? Should we regulate them out of creating regulation but how do we do that?
"Perhaps a better thing to ask is what we should or should not be "innovating"/doing with AI"
And so you can go throw off your clothes, abandon your comfortable technology and go back to a simpler time of banging rocks together because although we made life so much better and vastly sheltered from nature that some bad things happened along the way too. The problem of course that they used rocks to bash heads in so maybe regulate the use of those even though stone can be used to build shelter.
"What people who resort to it usually mean is that whether innovations are dangerous and damaging or not is of no interest to them and they want to make money off it regardless"
Do you work? I assume you try to make money? Consider how many lives dont get saved because innovations to improve them or protect them does not happen because you are afraid of technology?
"Anyone who opposes regulations to ensure, for example, transparency in the workings of technology which is already being used to choose targets to kill in an ongoing international conflict likely doesn't have anything useful to provide society -- from a moral standpoint."
Technology already being used to choose targets to kill! You mean humans? And god help the human with glasses thats more technology! I guess transparency of weapon systems is a great way to share them with the world. But your first thought seems to be military and yet there is a whole vast research space from understanding to improving our well-being.
But again I point out that regulation vs growth is a tradeoff.
The Gini index is not irrelevat. Perfect equality won't happen - but as it increases the "social pact" breaks and the society becomes fragmented and dangerous - we've seen it already. US were a far more prosperous society when the inqualituy was lower, and also a far more innovative one. Pilining money at the top restrain innovation, doesn't promote it. Because those at the top start to fear any innovation that could break their privileged position.
Why you no longer see new big companies growing? They are bought *before* they could become a competitor. And often they product are swalloed and disappear. A more equal economy is more competitive and innovative.
@kmorwath
"Perfect equality won't happen - but as it increases the "social pact" breaks and the society becomes fragmented and dangerous - we've seen it already."
Absolutely. Those dirt poor parts of Africa with their kum bi yah societal love and killing love equality. China is now more unequal and yet vastly improved. Or any of the And since equality increases when we have a market crash do we consider those good? Or do we prefer removing absolute poverty and improving the lives of everyone?
"US were a far more prosperous society when the inqualituy was lower, and also a far more innovative one."
Was it? I guess it depends how you measure prosperity. But arguing for people to be poorer seems counter to prosperous.
"Because those at the top start to fear any innovation that could break their privileged position."
Space travel was the preserve of governments. Now those at the top are innovating it. Same with robots and AI. EV's. Drones. Automation. And so on.
"Why you no longer see new big companies growing? They are bought *before* they could become a competitor. And often they product are swalloed and disappear. A more equal economy is more competitive and innovative."
We do. I am not sure of your age but Microsoft dominated PC's and did exactly what you described. Nokia dominated mobile phones! IBM dominated hardware and mainframes. Myspace was a thing. If you are young enough to have missed it go look up some of the despicable practices of Microsoft and its anticompetitive efforts. Now they are importing linux sub systems into their OS and failing in the various attempts they make to innovate either in the OS space or outside of it (search engine, mobile).
Tangentially here is an example of food being regulated in the UK
Food and drink regulated? Absolute loss of freedom. That's really bad.
Here, have a bottle of my new cheap artisanal wine for the weekend! "Woody Wine™®". Drown your sorrows. And don't worry about the 2% methyl alcohol content. It adds bite!
@codejunky
So you want AI to be dangerous, opaque, untraceable, racist/antisemitic/sexist etc, and to poison everyone and everything nearby, including the water you drink, the food you eat and the air you breathe?
I suspect that's not actually true.
If you want to remove some safeguards, be specific.
@Richard 12
"So you want AI to be dangerous, opaque, untraceable, racist/antisemitic/sexist etc, and to poison everyone and everything nearby, including the water you drink, the food you eat and the air you breathe?
I suspect that's not actually true."
That would mean you have a functioning brain. It requires a stupidity to assume that is what I would want and of course is nothing more than a hyperbolic argument for those short of having one. So thank you for not joining in the stupidity.
"If you want to remove some safeguards, be specific."
Oddly all I have pointed out is the simple and factual issue that regulation gets in the way of innovation. As a result I seem to have caused some heads to start throbbing because it upsets them. If the EU wish to increase regulation they can do, but I suspect they will again complain that they are being left behind as the rest of the world gets on with exploring the possibilities they can innovate.
I even didnt bother arguing for or against! Out of interest how do you see AI poisoning your water/food/air? I can imagine maybe data centre hardware could maybe bother water supply and I guess depending how it got its energy maybe the air. But then isnt that already regulated generically and not just specifically for these virtual models?
The AI Act to me as a developer looks pretty easy to adhere to.
In a nutshell (from my understanding as CS major, so take it with a grain of salt)
AIs are regulated and need to be approved, when they are security-relevant, as in medical applications, controlling aircraft or the like.
Sounds sensible to me.
AIs are forbidden, when infringing on rights of citizens.
But surely none of the signers planned to implement some shady, privacy-infringing or rights-violating AI developments, right? RIGHT?
Which means companies can work on 99% of possible AI applications without needing to consider the AI act.
Probably these CEOs just suffer from a heavy case of FOMO and feel the urge to do some virtue signalling?
which it says offers a way to work with governments and public institutions to transform public services using AI
How about this - take the AI, put it into a pretty box, then drop kick it into fucking orbit.
Trying to deal with French administrativia is a nightmare (prime exhibit: the CAF). Nobody needs AI thrown into the mix because it will not improve anything. It'll just be used as an excuse to employ fewer people to deal with the already massive backlog.
The AI companies that will make it in the long run are obviously those that put safety, security, privacy, individual rights, and respect for those involved in creative processes at the forefront of their activity. If Mistral isn't up to the job then they clearly don't belong anywhere near the leadership of that tech and can just flush themselves down the toilet right now rather than complain and whine about regulation that levels the playing field for all actors who want to operate in the EU, under the same rules, that protect everyone equally against the potential catastrophic outcomes of the tech -- think air travel, magnified.
Just because Donald Trump and his DOGE brownshirt wankers wanted to impose a 10-year moratorium on State regulation of AI (that was repelled in strikingly bipartisan fashion) doesn't mean that all other losers the world over should strive to do the same.
Those who have the business acumen to compete internationally have actually applauded the EU AI Act, like IBM and Salesforce, and the Act is inspiring other countries as well (Thailand, Kazakhstan, Canada, Brazil, Peru, ...). How long 'til SB 1407 has a form that Gov. Newsom is compelled to sign?
And heck, if the French government could release Lucie without breaking any law, then really, just about anything is still possible under the EU AI Act!
Forget Trump and think about the last sane public statement to come out of the US for a moment, before the wrestlemania madministration, before the tumble of the US Dollar, the defunding of science, World War Fee, the loser prehistoric cro-MAGA-magnon BS, and back to Joe Biden's final address to the nation, about preventing the "avalanche of misinformation and disinformation" (among others), that's what the EU AI Act is about: sanity!
Like all volatile fruitcake nutcase vegetables, the Orange is perishable. It's only those AI outfits that can plan for the time beyond that spoiled rottedness that stand a chance to make it through and succeed, imho, and chihuahuas!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
