←back to thread

Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement

(www.cnbc.com)
328 points rntn | 1 comments | 18 Jul 25 17:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | 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(8): >>44610592 #>>44610641 #>>44610669 #>>44611112 #>>44612330 #>>44613357 #>>44617228 #>>44620292 #
t0mas88 ◴[18 Jul 25 22:48 UTC] No.44610641[source]▶
Sounds like a reasonable guideline to me. Even for open source models, you can add a license term that requires users of the open source model to take "appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works"

This is European law, not US. Reasonable means reasonable and judges here are expected to weigh each side's interests and come to a conclusion. Not just a literal interpretation of the law.

replies(4): >>44613578 #>>44614324 #>>44614949 #>>44615016 #
sealeck ◴[19 Jul 25 12:38 UTC] No.44615016[source]▶
> This is European law, not US. Reasonable means reasonable and judges here are expected to weigh each side's interests and come to a conclusion. Not just a literal interpretation of the law.

I think you've got civil and common law the wrong way round :). US judges have _much_ more power to interpret law!

replies(2): >>44615325 #>>44616612 #
lowkey_ ◴[19 Jul 25 16:00 UTC] No.44616612[source]▶
In the US, for most laws, and most judges, there's actually much less power to interpret law. Part of the benefit of the common law system is to provide consistency and take that interpretation power away from judges of each case.
replies(1): >>44618123 #
1. sealeck ◴[19 Jul 25 18:36 UTC] No.44618123[source]▶
My claim is that at a system-level, judges in the US have more power to interpret laws. Your claim is that "in each individual case, the median amount of interpretation is lower in the US than the EU". But you also concede that this is because the judges rely on the interpretations of _other_ judges in cases (e.g. if the Supreme Court makes a very important decision which clarifies how a law should be interpreted, and this is then carried down throughout the rest of the justice system, then this means that there has been a really large amount of interpretation).