←back to thread

Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement

(www.cnbc.com)
313 points rntn | 9 comments | 18 Jul 25 17:56 UTC | HN request time: 1.129s | source | bottom
Show context
jahewson ◴[18 Jul 25 18:41 UTC] No.44608317[source]▶
There’s a summary of the guidelines here for anyone who is wondering:

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/introduction-to-code-of...

It’s certainly onerous. I don’t see how it helps anyone except for big copyright holders, lawyers and bureaucrats.

replies(4): >>44608426 #>>44611602 #>>44612905 #>>44613281 #
1. Atotalnoob ◴[18 Jul 25 18:57 UTC] No.44608491[source]▶
This all seems fine.

Most of these items should be implemented by major providers…

replies(1): >>44608836 #
2. isoprophlex ◴[18 Jul 25 18:58 UTC] No.44608498[source]▶
I don't care about your overly verbose, blandly written slop. If I wanted a llm summary, I would ask an llm myself.

This really is the 2025 equivalent to posting links to a google result page, imo.

replies(3): >>44608548 #>>44608585 #>>44608817 #
3. rokkamokka ◴[18 Jul 25 19:02 UTC] No.44608548[source]▶
It is... helpful though. More so than your reply
replies(1): >>44608583 #
4. isoprophlex ◴[18 Jul 25 19:05 UTC] No.44608583{3}[source]▶
Touché, I'll grant you that.
5. marcellus23 ◴[18 Jul 25 19:05 UTC] No.44608585[source]▶
More verbose than the source text? And who cares about bland writing when you're summarizing a legal text?
6. JonChesterfield ◴[18 Jul 25 19:26 UTC] No.44608817[source]▶
Nope. This text is embedded in HN and will survive rather better than the prompt or the search result, both of which are non-reproducible. It may bear no relation to reality but at least it won't abruptly disappear.
replies(1): >>44611919 #
7. techjamie ◴[18 Jul 25 19:28 UTC] No.44608836[source]▶
The problem is this severely harms the ability to release opens weights models, and only leaves the average person with options that aren't good for privacy.
8. jjulius ◴[19 Jul 25 02:06 UTC] No.44611919{3}[source]▶
Unless, ya know, it gets marked as Flagged/Dead.
replies(1): >>44618519 #
9. JonChesterfield ◴[19 Jul 25 19:26 UTC] No.44618519{4}[source]▶
Huh. Well, yes, it has indeed now been deleted. I guess that's the end of that line of thinking then.