←back to thread

Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement

(www.cnbc.com)
313 points rntn | 1 comments | 18 Jul 25 17:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
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(9): >>44610676 #>>44610940 #>>44610948 #>>44611033 #>>44611210 #>>44611955 #>>44612758 #>>44614808 #>>44618815 #
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 #
olalonde ◴[18 Jul 25 23:27 UTC] No.44610961[source]▶
You're both right, and that's exactly how early regulation often ends up stifling innovation. Trying to shape a market too soon tends to lock in assumptions that later prove wrong.
replies(2): >>44612297 #>>44613233 #
TFYS ◴[19 Jul 25 07:00 UTC] No.44613233[source]▶
Sometimes you can't reverse the damage and societal change after the market has already been created and shaped. Look at fossil fuels, plastic, social media, etc. We're now dependent on things that cause us harm, the damage done is irreversible and regulation is no longer possible because these innovations are now embedded in the foundations of modern society.

Innovation is good, but there's no need to go as fast as possible. We can be careful about things and study the effects more deeply before unleashing life changing technologies into the world. Now we're seeing the internet get destroyed by LLMs because a few people decided it was ok to do so. The benefits of this are not even clear yet, but we're still doing it just because we can. It's like driving a car at full speed into a corner just to see what's behind it.

replies(2): >>44613612 #>>44614574 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[19 Jul 25 11:28 UTC] No.44614574[source]▶
> Look at fossil fuels

WHAT?! Do you think we as humanity would have gotten to all the modern inventions we have today like the internet, space travel, atomic energy, if we had skipped the fossil fuel era by preemptively regulating it?

How do you imagine that? Unless you invent a time machine, go to the past, and give inventors schematics of modern tech achievable without fossil fuels.

replies(2): >>44614759 #>>44615442 #
1718627440 ◴[19 Jul 25 13:45 UTC] No.44615442[source]▶
The internet was created in the military at the start of the fossil era, there is no reason, why it should be affected by the oil era. If we wouldn't travel that much, because we don't use cars and planes that much, the internet would be even more important.

Space travel does need a lot of oil, so it might be affected, but the beginning of it were in the 40s so the research idea was already there.

Atomic energy is also from the 40s and might have been the alternative to oil, so it would thrive more if we haven't used oil that much.

Also all 3 ARE heavily regulated and mostly done by nation states.

replies(1): >>44616918 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[19 Jul 25 16:33 UTC] No.44616918[source]▶
How would you have won the world wars without oil?

Your augment only work in a fictional world where oil does not exist and you have the hindsight of today.

But when oil does exist and if you would have chosen not to use it, you will have long been steamrolled by industrialized nations powers who used their superior oil fueled economy and military to destroy or enslave your nation and you wouldn't be writing this today.

replies(1): >>44617187 #
1. 1718627440 ◴[19 Jul 25 16:58 UTC] No.44617187[source]▶
I thought we are arguing about regulating oil not to not use oil at all.

> How would you have won the world wars without oil?

You don't need to win world wars to have technological advancement, in fact my country didn't. I think the problem with this discussion, is that we all disagree what to regulate, that's how we ended up with the current situation after all.

I interpreted it to mean that we wouldn't use plastic for everything. I think we would be fine having glass bottles and paper, carton, wood for grocery wrapping. It wouldn't be so individual per company, but this not important for the economy and consumers, and also would result in a more competitive market.

I also interpreted it to mean that we wouldn't have so much cars and don't use planes beside really important stuff (i.e. international politics). The cities simply expand to the travel speed of the primary means of transportation. We would simply have more walkable cities and would use more trains. Amazon probably wouldn't be possible and we would have more local producers. In fact this is what we currently aim for and it is hard, because transition means that we have larger cities then we can support with the primary means of transportation.

As for your example inventions: we did have computers in the 40s and the need for networking would arise. Space travel is in danger, but you can use oil for space travel without using it for everyday consumer products. As I already wrote, we would have more atomic energy, not sure if that would be good though.