Most active commenters
  • dmix(3)
  • messe(3)
  • adastra22(3)

←back to thread

Meta says it won’t sign Europe AI agreement, calling it an overreach

(www.cnbc.com)
297 points rntn | 24 comments | 18 Jul 25 17:56 UTC | HN request time: 1.816s | source | bottom
Show context
ankit219 ◴[18 Jul 25 19:13 UTC] No.44608660[source]▶
Not just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of practice is voluntary and goes beyond what is in the act itself. EU published it in a way to say that there would be less scrutiny if you voluntarily sign up for this code of practice. Meta would anyway face scrutiny on all ends, so does not seem to a plausible case to sign something voluntary.

One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For open source, it's a very hard requirement[1].

> GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works.

[1] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-r...

replies(7): >>44610592 #>>44610641 #>>44610669 #>>44611112 #>>44612330 #>>44613357 #>>44617228 #
dmix ◴[18 Jul 25 22:41 UTC] No.44610592[source]▶
Lovely when they try to regulate a burgeoning market before we have any idea what the market is going to look like in a couple years.
replies(8): >>44610676 #>>44610940 #>>44610948 #>>44611033 #>>44611210 #>>44611955 #>>44612758 #>>44614808 #
remram ◴[18 Jul 25 22:53 UTC] No.44610676[source]▶
The whole point of regulating it is to shape what it will look like in a couple of years.
replies(8): >>44610764 #>>44610961 #>>44611052 #>>44611090 #>>44611379 #>>44611534 #>>44611915 #>>44613903 #
1. dmix ◴[18 Jul 25 23:04 UTC] No.44610764[source]▶
Regulators often barely grasp how current markets function and they are supposed to be futurists now too? Government regulatory interests almost always end up lining up with protecting entrenched interests, so it's essentially asking for a slow moving group of the same mega companies. Which is very much what Europes market looks like today. Stasis and shifting to a stagnating middle.
replies(3): >>44610790 #>>44612672 #>>44613460 #
2. krainboltgreene ◴[18 Jul 25 23:08 UTC] No.44610790[source]▶
So the solution is to allow the actual entrenched interests to determine the future of things when they also barely grasp how the current markets function and are currently proclaiming to be futurists?
replies(4): >>44611061 #>>44611137 #>>44611732 #>>44616373 #
3. betaby ◴[18 Jul 25 23:39 UTC] No.44611061[source]▶
Won't somebody please think of the children?
replies(1): >>44614311 #
4. buggyinout ◴[18 Jul 25 23:51 UTC] No.44611137[source]▶
They’re demanding collective conversation. You don’t have to be involved if you prefer to be asocial except to post impotent rage online.

Same way the pols aren’t futurists and perfect neither is anyone else. Everyone should sit at the table and discuss this like adults.

You want to go live in the hills alone, go for it, Dick Proenneke. Society is people working collectively.

5. tjwebbnorfolk ◴[19 Jul 25 01:33 UTC] No.44611732[source]▶
The best way for "entrenched interests" to stifle competition is to buy/encourage regulation that keeps everybody else out of their sandbox pre-emptively.

For reference, see every highly-regulated industry everywhere.

You think Sam Altman was in testifying to the US Congress begging for AI regulation because he's just a super nice guy?

replies(1): >>44612371 #
6. goatlover ◴[19 Jul 25 03:37 UTC] No.44612371{3}[source]▶
Regulation exists because of monopolistic practices and abuses in the early 20th century.
replies(2): >>44612461 #>>44612562 #
7. dmix ◴[19 Jul 25 03:56 UTC] No.44612461{4}[source]▶
That's a bit oversimplified. Humans have been creating authority systems trying to control others lives and business since formal societies have been a thing, likely even before agriculture. History is also full of examples of arbitrary and counter productive attempts at control, which is a product of basic human nature combined with power, and why we must always be skeptical.
replies(1): >>44612798 #
8. keysdev ◴[19 Jul 25 04:20 UTC] No.44612562{4}[source]▶
That can be, however regulation has just changed monopolistic practices to even more profitable oligarchaistic practices. Just look at Standard Oil.
9. stuaxo ◴[19 Jul 25 04:46 UTC] No.44612672[source]▶
The EU is founded on the idea of markets and regulation.
replies(1): >>44613616 #
10. verisimi ◴[19 Jul 25 05:22 UTC] No.44612798{5}[source]▶
As a member of 'humanity', do you find yourself creating authority systems for AI though? No.

If you are paying for lobbyists to write the legislation you want, as corporations do, you get the law you want - that excludes competition, funds your errors etc.

The point is you are not dealing with 'humanity', you are dealing with those who represent authority for humanity - not the same thing at all. Connected politicians/CEOs etc are not actually representing 'humanity' - they merely say that they are doing so, while representing themselves.

11. messe ◴[19 Jul 25 07:53 UTC] No.44613460[source]▶
> Which is very much what Europes market looks like today. Stasis and shifting to a stagnating middle.

Preferable to a burgeoning oligarchy.

replies(1): >>44613912 #
12. miohtama ◴[19 Jul 25 08:24 UTC] No.44613616[source]▶
The EU is founded on the idea of useless bureaucracy.

It's not just IT. Ask any EU farmer.

replies(1): >>44613856 #
13. fxtentacle ◴[19 Jul 25 09:16 UTC] No.44613856{3}[source]▶
Contrary to the constant whining, most of them are actually quite wealthy. And thanks to strong right to repair laws, they can keep using John Deere equipment without paying extortionate licensing fees.
replies(1): >>44614195 #
14. adastra22 ◴[19 Jul 25 09:27 UTC] No.44613912[source]▶
No, that... that's exactly what we have today. An oligarchy persists through captured state regulation. A more free market would have a constantly changing top.
replies(1): >>44614271 #
15. mavhc ◴[19 Jul 25 10:21 UTC] No.44614195{4}[source]▶
They're wealthy because they were paid for not using their agricultural land, so they cropped down all the trees on parts of their land that they couldn't use, to classify it as agricultural, got paid, and as a side effect caused downstream flooding
replies(1): >>44615314 #
16. messe ◴[19 Jul 25 10:34 UTC] No.44614271{3}[source]▶
Historically, freer markets have lead to monopolies. It's why we have antitrust regulations in the first place (now if only they were enforced...)
replies(1): >>44614488 #
17. johnisgood ◴[19 Jul 25 10:41 UTC] No.44614311{3}[source]▶
Yes, a common rhetoric, and terrorism and national security.
18. adastra22 ◴[19 Jul 25 11:12 UTC] No.44614488{4}[source]▶
Depends on the time horizon you look at. A completely unregulated market usually ends up dominated by monopolists… who last a generation or two and then are usurped and become declining oligarchs. True all the way back to the Medici.

In a rigidly regulated market with preemptive action by regulators (like EU, Japan) you end up with a persistent oligarchy that is never replaced. An aristocracy of sorts.

The middle road is the best. Set up a fair playing field and rules of the game, but allow innovation to happen unhindered, until the dust has settled. There should be regulation, but the rules must be bought with blood. The risk of premature regulation is worse.

replies(1): >>44615274 #
19. messe ◴[19 Jul 25 13:22 UTC] No.44615274{5}[source]▶
> There should be regulation, but the rules must be bought with blood.

That's an awfully callous approach, and displays a disturbing lack of empathy toward other people.

replies(1): >>44616360 #
20. pyman ◴[19 Jul 25 13:29 UTC] No.44615314{5}[source]▶
Just to stay on topic: outside the US there's a general rule of thumb: if Meta is against it, the EU is probably doing something right.
replies(1): >>44616471 #
21. adastra22 ◴[19 Jul 25 15:31 UTC] No.44616360{6}[source]▶
Calculated, not callous. Quite the opposite: precaution kills people every day, just not as visibly. This is especially true in the area of medicine where innovation (new medicines) aren’t made available even when no other treatment is approved. People die every day by the hundreds of thousands of diseases that we could be innovating against.
22. RestlessMind ◴[19 Jul 25 15:33 UTC] No.44616373[source]▶
OpenAI was not an entrenched interest until 2023. Yahoo mattered until 2009. Nokia was the king of mobile phones until 2010.

Technology changes very quickly and the future of things is hardly decided by entrenched interests.

23. rpdillon ◴[19 Jul 25 15:44 UTC] No.44616471{6}[source]▶
Well, the topic is really whether or not the EU's regulations are effective at producing desired outcomes. The comment you're responding to is making a strong argument that it isn't. I tend to agree.

There's a certain hubris to applying rules and regulations to a system that you fundamentally don't understand.

replies(1): >>44617382 #
24. pyman ◴[19 Jul 25 17:20 UTC] No.44617382{7}[source]▶
For those of us outside the US, it's not hard to understand how regulations work. The US acts as a protectionist country, it sets strict rules and pressures other governments to follow them. But at the same time, it promotes free markets, globalisation, and neoliberal values to everyone else.

The moment the EU shows even a small sign of protectionism, the US complains. It's a double standard.