I will definitely not miss ChatGPT if it has to leave the EU — I'm really worried about the effects of this technology. On the other hand, I don't understand why you would regulate AI while politicians can utter all the crap they want and people still trust them.
Who cares about ChatGPT and EU? lol Both suck. Neither is important for life.
The EU wants back doors to encryption, the EU wants consumer privacy, the EU wants open App stores, the EU wants to ban chatGPT, the EU wants open standards, the EU wants a single charging cable, the EU wants to be on the technological cutting edge, the EU wants to regulate and fine large technology companies to death.
Seems like the motivation is always more related to anti-Americanism than clear dispassionate thinking.
What exactly about every single one of those things you list is "anti-American"?
The only way that is "anti-American" is if you assume that "America" opposes consumer privacy, opposes open App stores, insists on ChatGPT, opposes open standards, wants to enforce a plethora of different charging standards, etc.…
From where I'm standing (which is within the EU), all of those stances the EU is taking are FOR consumer interests, not AGAINST anything, per se — and least of all against America. (Whether the proposed legislature in all of these cases is actually a benefit to consumers is a matter of solid discussion; I don't agree with all of it, myself.) It just happens that Americans like yourself don't read ANYTHING about regulation when it doesn't affect American megacorps.
Ask yourself why almost 50 MILLION Americans do not have access to safe drinking water. LACK of regulation is "anti-American", QED.
I think they will leave in the same way that Facebook has left he EU after they threatened to do so…
Facebook decided not to leave, but also to just continue doing what they were doing after being repeatedly warned… the "find out" phase of their European business just got them a 1.2 billion Euro fine. Which will be appealed and hopefully multiplied by ten by the time they're done.
The EU wants back doors to encryption, the EU wants consumer privacy, the EU wants open App stores, the EU wants to ban chatGPT, the EU wants open standards, the EU wants a single charging cable, the EU wants to be on the technological cutting edge, the EU wants to regulate and fine large technology companies to death.
Seems like the motivation is always more related to anti-Americanism than clear dispassionate thinking.
What exactly about every single one of those things you list is "anti-American"?
The only way that is "anti-American" is if you assume that "America" opposes consumer privacy, opposes open App stores, insists on ChatGPT, opposes open standards, wants to enforce a plethora of different charging standards, etc.…
From where I'm standing (which is within the EU), all of those stances the EU is taking are FOR consumer interests, not AGAINST anything, per se — and least of all against America. (Whether the proposed legislature in all of these cases is actually a benefit to consumers is a matter of solid discussion; I don't agree with all of it, myself.) It just happens that Americans like yourself don't read ANYTHING about regulation when it doesn't affect American megacorps.
Ask yourself why almost 50 MILLION Americans do not have access to safe drinking water. LACK of regulation is "anti-American", QED.
Requiring back doors to encryption is NOT FOR consumers. They are to benefit the governments ability to spy on their own citizens and to invade their privacy. Unless you're one the consumers that like to yell ....... "Think of the children!" .... when it comes to end to end encryption for the consumers, there is no FOR consumers, when it come to the government wanting back doors to that encryption.
but wanting backdoors to encryption is much more that this and the EU government is yelling "Think of the children", in an attempt to convince its citizens that they don't have the right to E2EE, without a government backdoor.
Having more government regulations isn't the solution for every problem.
>Freddie Marshall Carson says Dolby Atmos works by using an algorithm to process a movie's or game'ssounds. The algorithm calculates how the sound should travel through the room and bounce off surfaces. The information is then sent to the speakers, reproducing the sound in real-time.<
There are thousands of algorithm models being developed and in use now and most are benefits to consumers and might even end up saving Mankind. Having tech ignorant politicians highly regulating them because it might lead to a mess that they don't want to deal with later, is not the way to go. If politicians thinks that proceeding with the development of an algorithm model that might add minutes or hours to the time in predicting an earthquake might also lead to a means where someone can use it to listen in on a private conversion miles away and they don't want to deal with that mess later, should they pass regulations banning or slowing down the development of that model or should they let it proceed unregulated and deal with any mess later ..... if the mess occurs at all?
The most innovative algorithm that might end up saving Mankind from climate change might end up being the result of a "free for all", where developers are allowed to try everything they can think of, to see if it makes it better. And such an algorithm might never be discover if politicians were to over regulate its development from the beginning because they think (without any proof) that it might lead to a mess that they don't want to deal with later.
Would the EU have banned the development of the internet (in the EU), if they knew of the mess it would cause concerning the invasion of individual privacy, children exploitation, closure of brick and mortar establishments, explosion of money making scams, reduction in consumers choices and completion, aid to terrorism, etc..? Would you rather have your government cripple the development of the internet in the EU (when compared to the rest of the World) at the beginning or rather have them deal with the mess from the abuse of the internet, later (like they're doing now)?
You really want the politicians of any government, to highly regulate by legislation, the development of ALL algorithm based tech? What politicians need is an algorithm that can help them predict whether further development of a certain algorithm will most likely result in a mess. For sure, politicians don't have a clue about any mess occurring ...... before it's already obvious to everyone.
>Freddie Marshall Carson says Dolby Atmos works by using an algorithm to process a movie's or game's sounds. The algorithm calculates how the sound should travel through the room and bounce off surfaces. The information is then sent to the speakers, reproducing the sound in real-time.<
There are thousands of algorithm models being developed and in use now and most are benefits to consumers and might even end up saving Mankind. Having tech ignorant politicians highly regulating them because it might lead to a mess that they don't want to deal with later, is not the way to go. If politicians thinks that proceeding with the development of an algorithm model that might add minutes or hours to the time in predicting an earthquake might also lead to a means where someone can use it to listen in on a private conversion miles away and they don't want to deal with that mess later, should they pass regulations banning or slowing down the development of that model or should they let it proceed unregulated and deal with any mess later ..... if the mess occurs at all?
The most innovative algorithm that might end up saving Mankind from climate change might end up being the result of a "free for all", where developers are allowed to try everything they can think of, to see if it makes it better. And such an algorithm might never be discover if politicians were to over regulate its development from the beginning because they think (without any proof) that it might lead to a mess that they don't want to deal with later.
Would the EU have banned the development of the internet (in the EU), if they knew of the mess it would cause concerning the invasion of individual privacy, children exploitation, closure of brick and mortar establishments, explosion of money making scams, reduction in consumers choices and completion, aid to terrorism, etc..? Would you rather have your government cripple the development of the internet in the EU (when compared to the rest of the World) at the beginning or rather have them deal with the mess from the abuse of the internet, later (like they're doing now)?
You really want the politicians of any government, to highly regulate by legislation, the development of ALL algorithm based tech? What politicians need is an algorithm that can help them predict whether further development of a certain algorithm will most likely result in a mess. For sure, politicians don't have a clue about any mess occurring ...... before it's already obvious to everyone.
Are you really that obtuse?
Are you really unable to put a comment into context?
Where is your common sense?
What are we talking about here?
If an algorithm doesn't conflict with legislation there would be no problem, would there?
Algorithms themselves aren't the problem. It's how they are used. Legislation would ensure they are used within a framework that doesn't leave consumers open to abuse.
The whole point would be to establish a set of umbrella protections to ensure that consumers are protected from the get go.
When first installed, the ChatGPT app highlights the warning that it may return false information, The May 10 Lancet published the following article, along with detailed supplemental addendum showing the interaction with ChatGPT which anyone can then reproduce to verify the results. The dangers of using large language models for peer review
ChatGPT responded with totally made up material, sounding quite authoritative.
Banning ChatGPT would seem a good idea. It would give alternative AI systems which actually can tell the truth an opportunity to be developed -- if that can be done.
Large Language Models like GPT-4 are inherently lying machines.
They lie because most of the information provided to it lies. Think about how many articles exist touting the dangers of AI verses how many articles tout the benefits. If all AI has to trawl is nothing but lies and misinformation then that is all the results it will spew.
The old programming adage exists that rings so much truer with AI:
Garbage in - Garbage Out
If crap is entered then that is what AI will spew out
The EU wants back doors to encryption, the EU wants consumer privacy, the EU wants open App stores, the EU wants to ban chatGPT, the EU wants open standards, the EU wants a single charging cable, the EU wants to be on the technological cutting edge, the EU wants to regulate and fine large technology companies to death.
Seems like the motivation is always more related to anti-Americanism than clear dispassionate thinking.
What exactly about every single one of those things you list is "anti-American"?
The only way that is "anti-American" is if you assume that "America" opposes consumer privacy, opposes open App stores, insists on ChatGPT, opposes open standards, wants to enforce a plethora of different charging standards, etc.…
From where I'm standing (which is within the EU), all of those stances the EU is taking are FOR consumer interests, not AGAINST anything, per se — and least of all against America. (Whether the proposed legislature in all of these cases is actually a benefit to consumers is a matter of solid discussion; I don't agree with all of it, myself.) It just happens that Americans like yourself don't read ANYTHING about regulation when it doesn't affect American megacorps.
Ask yourself why almost 50 MILLION Americans do not have access to safe drinking water. LACK of regulation is "anti-American", QED.
Requiring back doors to encryption is NOT FOR consumers. They are to benefit the governments ability to spy on their own citizens and to invade their privacy. Unless you're one the consumers that like to yell ....... "Think of the children!" .... when it comes to end to end encryption for the consumers, there is no FOR consumers, when it come to the government wanting back doors to that encryption.
You make a good point on encryption specifically, and I agree.
However, there are several points to consider here:
1. it is a PROPOSAL, and far from being approved, let alone turned into legislature. At this point, it's not that likely to ever happen.
2. Yes, trying to break end-to-end encryption could be used by the government to spy on their own citizens and invade their privacy. THAT is why it's problematic. HOWEVER, there are very good arguments in favour—the CSAM argument does hold water, and is absolutely a legitimate concern and a HUGE global problem. As does, to a lesser degree IMO, the prevention of terrorism and other crimes.
I believe it's a Good Thing™ to bring that discussion into politics and try and find a solution that's in the citizens' best interest. I also firmly believe that destroying E2EE cannot and should not (and likely will not) be a part of the solution here, but the discussion does need to be held in order to find the best way forward.
When first installed, the ChatGPT app highlights the warning that it may return false information, The May 10 Lancet published the following article, along with detailed supplemental addendum showing the interaction with ChatGPT which anyone can then reproduce to verify the results. The dangers of using large language models for peer review
ChatGPT responded with totally made up material, sounding quite authoritative.
Banning ChatGPT would seem a good idea. It would give alternative AI systems which actually can tell the truth an opportunity to be developed -- if that can be done.
Large Language Models like GPT-4 are inherently lying machines.
They lie because most of the information provided to it lies. Think about how many articles exist touting the dangers of AI verses how many articles tout the benefits. If all AI has to trawl is nothing but lies and misinformation then that is all the results it will spew.
The old programming adage exists that rings so much truer with AI:
Garbage in - Garbage Out
If crap is entered then that is what AI will spew out
It's a little more than that.
The root of the problem is that AI has absolutely no understanding of what it's putting out, but simply strings together likely combinations according to rules it was fed with.
There will ALWAYS be crap information out there, so there is no way to prevent AI from being exposed to it as it trawls its sources.
The problem we have is that there is no way to distinguish the coherent-sounding bullshit from what's true.
The EU wants back doors to encryption, the EU wants consumer privacy, the EU wants open App stores, the EU wants to ban chatGPT, the EU wants open standards, the EU wants a single charging cable, the EU wants to be on the technological cutting edge, the EU wants to regulate and fine large technology companies to death.
Seems like the motivation is always more related to anti-Americanism than clear dispassionate thinking.
Talk about the pot and the kettle. There’s always raves against the EU by gung-ho Americans. Try getting some control over your massacres by gun owners before telling others what to do.
The EU wants back doors to encryption, the EU wants consumer privacy, the EU wants open App stores, the EU wants to ban chatGPT, the EU wants open standards, the EU wants a single charging cable, the EU wants to be on the technological cutting edge, the EU wants to regulate and fine large technology companies to death.
Seems like the motivation is always more related to anti-Americanism than clear dispassionate thinking.
Talk about the pot and the kettle. There’s always raves against the EU by gung-ho Americans. Try getting some control over your massacres by gun owners before telling others what to do.
Taking the gun crap out of the discussion, because that's a WHOLE other world of madness, the real irony here is that nearly all of the EU's proposals have been or are being brought to the table in the United States, sometimes with only subtle changes.
These Euros are complete communist Aholes . Look at what they are doing to Apple as well.
if USA stops funding Ukraine tomorrow , let’s see what happens to the European Union?
I voted Democrat all my life but I probably will vote Trump just in the issue of endless funding for Ukraine and dealing with the out of control EU alone , as well as paying 90 percent for NATO!?!
. All these EU countries Put their country first, it’s time we put our country and our companies first
These Euros are complete communist Aholes . Look at what they are doing to Apple as well.
if USA stops funding Ukraine tomorrow , let’s see what happens to the European Union?
I voted Democrat all my life but I probably will vote Trump just in the issue of endless funding for Ukraine and dealing with the out of control EU alone , as well as paying 90 percent for NATO!?!
. All these EU countries Put their country first, it’s time we put our country and our companies first
Do you understand the concept of net contributors and net receivers within the EU?
I don't see how you can claim that EU countries put their country first when some of them have been net contributors to more needy countries within the EU for longer than I can remember.
The US could fund NATO 100% and it would still be a good deal for it. The US, for all of Trump's blustering, can only have military influence if it has strategic bases around the world and agreements for supply lines. NATO provides the perfect treaty based solution to that problem.
I thought you voted Trump last time around and regretted it.
Sooner or later the US will take a look at what comes out of the EU legislation on AI and very likely follow suit in basically the same terms.
Access to 'clean' information on the internet is getting harder by the day.
I think it's fair to say that big business interests have tainted the quality of news in general over the last 15 years as print media has dried up. Trump & Co pushed things over line with political interests merging with business interests. Boris & Co wasn't far behind. The Russians and Chinese have pretty much always been pulling the strings locally too.
Throwing AI into that mix uncontrolled will not improve things. Far from it.
These Euros are complete communist Aholes . Look at what they are doing to Apple as well.
if USA stops funding Ukraine tomorrow , let’s see what happens to the European Union?
I voted Democrat all my life but I probably will vote Trump just in the issue of endless funding for Ukraine and dealing with the out of control EU alone , as well as paying 90 percent for NATO!?!
. All these EU countries Put their country first, it’s time we put our country and our companies first
EU countries don't put their country first, they put people first, I know that sounds insane as an American, but their are countries out there that do care for their people.
These Euros are complete communist Aholes . Look at what they are doing to Apple as well.
if USA stops funding Ukraine tomorrow , let’s see what happens to the European Union?
I voted Democrat all my life but I probably will vote Trump just in the issue of endless funding for Ukraine and dealing with the out of control EU alone , as well as paying 90 percent for NATO!?!
. All these EU countries Put their country first, it’s time we put our country and our companies first
EU countries don't put their country first, they put people first, I know that sounds insane as an American, but their are countries out there that do care for their people.
Let's be fair. US politicians and companies don't put their country first... they put their donors first. This is why you can have a majority of a populace wanting certain things to pass but it won't happen because large donors—usually to so-called conservative politicians—are the ones making the rules.
These Euros are complete communist Aholes . Look at what they are doing to Apple as well.
if USA stops funding Ukraine tomorrow , let’s see what happens to the European Union?
I voted Democrat all my life but I probably will vote Trump just in the issue of endless funding for Ukraine and dealing with the out of control EU alone , as well as paying 90 percent for NATO!?!
. All these EU countries Put their country first, it’s time we put our country and our companies first
EU countries don't put their country first, they put people first, I know that sounds insane as an American, but their are countries out there that do care for their people.
Let's be fair. US politicians and companies don't put their country first... they put their donors first. This is why you can have a majority of a populace wanting certain things to pass but it won't happen because large donors—usually to so-called conservative politicians—are the ones making the rules.
Oh, we get that here in Europe, as well. A lot.
But since democracies here generally don't have the U.S. two-party-winner-takes-all structure, parties usually rule by coalition with other parties, so their lobbyists' influence is somewhat limited.
These Euros are complete communist Aholes . Look at what they are doing to Apple as well.
if USA stops funding Ukraine tomorrow , let’s see what happens to the European Union?
I voted Democrat all my life but I probably will vote Trump just in the issue of endless funding for Ukraine and dealing with the out of control EU alone , as well as paying 90 percent for NATO!?!
. All these EU countries Put their country first, it’s time we put our country and our companies first
Do you understand the concept of net contributors and net receivers within the EU?
I don't see how you can claim that EU countries put their country first when some of them have been net contributors to more needy countries within the EU for longer than I can remember.
The US could fund NATO 100% and it would still be a good deal for it. The US, for all of Trump's blustering, can only have military influence if it has strategic bases around the world and agreements for supply lines. NATO provides the perfect treaty based solution to that problem.
I thought you voted Trump last time around and regretted it.
Sooner or later the US will take a look at what comes out of the EU legislation on AI and very likely follow suit in basically the same terms.
Access to 'clean' information on the internet is getting harder by the day.
I think it's fair to say that big business interests have tainted the quality of news in general over the last 15 years as print media has dried up. Trump & Co pushed things over line with political interests merging with business interests. Boris & Co wasn't far behind. The Russians and Chinese have pretty much always been pulling the strings locally too.
Throwing AI into that mix uncontrolled will not improve things. Far from it.
How do I regret regret voting Trump last time when he isn’t president now? I am confused why you would say that. I have never voted anything besides Democrat . However , that is going to change just based on These crazy EU policies on Apple and now Open AI.
Perhaps you think funding NATO in exchanges for military base is a good deal. Maybe in the 1980/ it was but I disagree as the current administration is marching is into a nuclear conflict with Russia.
The longer this war is funded and goes on, Nuclear war becomes closer. What happens when you keep poking a crazed animal into a corner? He might just decide to end it all and take America down as his final act. This is why no matter how crazy or bad you think Putin is, you negotiate asap with a man with 6000 nukes, not keep pushing him into a corner with money and weapons
Ukraine is not the 51st state , EU and NATO should be taking the lead on this war, as they seem perfectly capable of taking the lead when it comes to attacking American companies from Apple to now Open AI
Comments
What exactly about every single one of those things you list is "anti-American"?
From where I'm standing (which is within the EU), all of those stances the EU is taking are FOR consumer interests, not AGAINST anything, per se — and least of all against America. (Whether the proposed legislature in all of these cases is actually a benefit to consumers is a matter of solid discussion; I don't agree with all of it, myself.) It just happens that Americans like yourself don't read ANYTHING about regulation when it doesn't affect American megacorps.
Facebook decided not to leave, but also to just continue doing what they were doing after being repeatedly warned… the "find out" phase of their European business just got them a 1.2 billion Euro fine. Which will be appealed and hopefully multiplied by ten by the time they're done.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/war-upon-end-to-end-encryption-eu-wants-big-tech-to-scan-private-messages/
https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-document-csa-law/
https://securityboulevard.com/2022/05/eu-has-lost-the-plot-will-ban-encryption-think-of-the-children/
and the EU government will say that's it's because of this ........
https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/europe-is-worlds-largest-host-of-child-pornography-advocacy-groups-say/
but wanting backdoors to encryption is much more that this and the EU government is yelling "Think of the children", in an attempt to convince its citizens that they don't have the right to E2EE, without a government backdoor.
Having more government regulations isn't the solution for every problem.
https://www.magneticmag.com/2022/07/how-dolby-atmos-works/
>Freddie Marshall Carson says Dolby Atmos works by using an algorithm to process a movie's or game's sounds. The algorithm calculates how the sound should travel through the room and bounce off surfaces. The information is then sent to the speakers, reproducing the sound in real-time.<
or
https://www.eetimes.com/an-overview-of-video-compression-algorithms/
or
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/novel-algorithm-on-wearable-devices-can-detect-irregular-heartbeat-may-prompt-early-care
or
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/research/algorithms-that-help-save-the-planet/
or
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/13/1049763/a-deep-learning-algorithm-could-detect-earthquakes-by-filtering-out-city-noise/
There are thousands of algorithm models being developed and in use now and most are benefits to consumers and might even end up saving Mankind. Having tech ignorant politicians highly regulating them because it might lead to a mess that they don't want to deal with later, is not the way to go. If politicians thinks that proceeding with the development of an algorithm model that might add minutes or hours to the time in predicting an earthquake might also lead to a means where someone can use it to listen in on a private conversion miles away and they don't want to deal with that mess later, should they pass regulations banning or slowing down the development of that model or should they let it proceed unregulated and deal with any mess later ..... if the mess occurs at all?
The most innovative algorithm that might end up saving Mankind from climate change might end up being the result of a "free for all", where developers are allowed to try everything they can think of, to see if it makes it better. And such an algorithm might never be discover if politicians were to over regulate its development from the beginning because they think (without any proof) that it might lead to a mess that they don't want to deal with later.
Would the EU have banned the development of the internet (in the EU), if they knew of the mess it would cause concerning the invasion of individual privacy, children exploitation, closure of brick and mortar establishments, explosion of money making scams, reduction in consumers choices and completion, aid to terrorism, etc..? Would you rather have your government cripple the development of the internet in the EU (when compared to the rest of the World) at the beginning or rather have them deal with the mess from the abuse of the internet, later (like they're doing now)?
You really want the politicians of any government, to highly regulate by legislation, the development of ALL algorithm based tech? What politicians need is an algorithm that can help them predict whether further development of a certain algorithm will most likely result in a mess. For sure, politicians don't have a clue about any mess occurring ...... before it's already obvious to everyone.
Are you really unable to put a comment into context?
Where is your common sense?
What are we talking about here?
If an algorithm doesn't conflict with legislation there would be no problem, would there?
Algorithms themselves aren't the problem. It's how they are used. Legislation would ensure they are used within a framework that doesn't leave consumers open to abuse.
The whole point would be to establish a set of umbrella protections to ensure that consumers are protected from the get go.
They lie because most of the information provided to it lies. Think about how many articles exist touting the dangers of AI verses how many articles tout the benefits. If all AI has to trawl is nothing but lies and misinformation then that is all the results it will spew.
The old programming adage exists that rings so much truer with AI:
If crap is entered then that is what AI will spew out
However, there are several points to consider here:
1. it is a PROPOSAL, and far from being approved, let alone turned into legislature. At this point, it's not that likely to ever happen.
The root of the problem is that AI has absolutely no understanding of what it's putting out, but simply strings together likely combinations according to rules it was fed with.
The problem we have is that there is no way to distinguish the coherent-sounding bullshit from what's true.
if USA stops funding Ukraine tomorrow , let’s see what happens to the European Union?
I voted Democrat all my life but I probably will vote Trump just in the issue of endless funding for Ukraine and dealing with the out of control EU alone , as well as paying 90 percent for NATO!?!
. All these EU countries Put their country first, it’s time we put our country and our companies first
I don't see how you can claim that EU countries put their country first when some of them have been net contributors to more needy countries within the EU for longer than I can remember.
The US could fund NATO 100% and it would still be a good deal for it. The US, for all of Trump's blustering, can only have military influence if it has strategic bases around the world and agreements for supply lines. NATO provides the perfect treaty based solution to that problem.
I thought you voted Trump last time around and regretted it.
Sooner or later the US will take a look at what comes out of the EU legislation on AI and very likely follow suit in basically the same terms.
Access to 'clean' information on the internet is getting harder by the day.
I think it's fair to say that big business interests have tainted the quality of news in general over the last 15 years as print media has dried up. Trump & Co pushed things over line with political interests merging with business interests. Boris & Co wasn't far behind. The Russians and Chinese have pretty much always been pulling the strings locally too.
Throwing AI into that mix uncontrolled will not improve things. Far from it.
The longer this war is funded and goes on, Nuclear war becomes closer. What happens when you keep poking a crazed animal into a corner? He might just decide to end it all and take America down as his final act. This is why no matter how crazy or bad you think Putin is, you negotiate asap with a man with 6000 nukes, not keep pushing him into a corner with money and weapons
Ukraine is not the 51st state , EU and NATO should be taking the lead on this war, as they seem perfectly capable of taking the lead when it comes to attacking American companies from Apple to now Open AI