EU moves closer to passing one of world’s first laws governing AI

[Social Media]

 

The EU has taken a major step towards passing one of the world’s first laws governing artificial intelligence after its main legislative branch approved the text of draft legislation that includes a blanket ban on police use of live facial recognition technology in public places.

The European parliament approved rules aimed at setting a global standard for the technology, which encompasses everything from automated medical diagnoses to some types of drone, AI-generated videos known as deepfakes, and bots such as ChatGPT.

MEPs will now thrash out details with EU countries before the draft rules – known as the AI act - become legislation.

“AI raises a lot of questions socially, ethically, economically. But now is not the time to hit any ‘pause button’. On the contrary, it is about acting fast and taking responsibility,” said Thierry Breton, the European commissioner for the internal market.

A rebellion by centre-right MEPs in the EPP political grouping over an outright ban on real-time facial recognition on the streets of Europe failed to materialise, with a number of politicians attending Silvio Berlusconi’s funeral in Italy.

The final vote was 499 in favour and 28 against with 93 abstentions.

 

Full Story

 

[Kwasaki]

Frightened of losing their jobs even though AI would do a better job.

[JonnyF]

The EU's first instinct is always to over-regulate, restrict, impede, control. It's a Pavlovian response.

 

They have to justify their overpaid positions as faceless autocrats.

 

Thankfully, the UK left all that nonsense far behind.

[sirineou]

Unfortunately bad actors, and nations  will not be deterred. In fact, "Good" nations with the best intentions' will not desist from pursuing further development because their enemies will not, and to do so would be unilateral disarmament. And the enemies will not stop development because they don't know what their enemy will do. (Enemy being a subjective term)

The genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back .I am afraid we are screwed.

The  good news is that we will finally have intelligent life on earth. 

[herfiehandbag]

14 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The EU's first instinct is always to over-regulate, restrict, impede, control. It's a Pavlovian response.

 

They have to justify their overpaid positions as faceless autocrats.

 

Thankfully, the UK left all that nonsense far behind.

An unelected (French) beaurocrat laying down the law for the rest of the EU.

 

MEPs doing nothing, except enjoying a no doubt all expenses paid trip to a funeral.

 

Who would ever have imagined that?????????

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Unfortunately bad actors, and nations  will not be deterred. In fact, "Good" nations with the best intentions' will not desist from pursuing further development because their enemies will not, and to do so would be unilateral disarmament. And the enemies will not stop development because they don't know what their enemy will do. (Enemy being a subjective term)

The genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back .I am afraid we are screwed.

The  good news is that we will finally have intelligent life on earth. 

Exactly.

 

There are many horses in this race.

 

All the EU is doing is putting a 100kg jockey and a pair of Wellington boots on their own horse.  The Chinese and the Russians meanwhile have installed carbon fibre horseshoes and injected their horse with steroids. 

 

Nothing new here though. The EU is renowned for regulating the competitiveness out of it's member states. Unfortunately for them in this case, their influence ends at the EU's borders. 

[placeholder]

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The EU's first instinct is always to over-regulate, restrict, impede, control. It's a Pavlovian response.

 

They have to justify their overpaid positions as faceless autocrats.

 

Thankfully, the UK left all that nonsense far behind.

Really?

 

Government increases the cost of regulation to business by £9.9bn

The RPC’s latest IVB report confirms that regulatory measures introduced by Government over the last year increased net direct costs to business by £9.9 billion.

When combined with the figures for the previous two years, the total increase for the parliament to date is £14.3 billion. This compares to the Government’s target of keeping costs constant and not increasing the regulatory burden on business during this period.

https://rpc.blog.gov.uk/2023/02/24/government-increases-the-cost-of-regulation-to-business-by-9-9bn/

[RayC]

7 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

An unelected (French) beaurocrat laying down the law for the rest of the rest of Europe.

Clearly you have a vivid imagination as there is nothing factual in your post: You also appear to lack an understanding of the process governing the making of EU law.

 

No " ... unelected (French) beaurocrat (sic) is laying down the law for the rest of the EU..." The European Parliament - a group of 705 democratically elected MPs from 27 member states - voted by a majority to table a motion. This will now go to the European Council and European Commission for further discussion. As the (full) Guardian article implies, the final proposal is likely to be different to the original proposal.

 

7 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

 

MEPs doing nothing, except enjoying a no doubt all expenses paid trip to a funeral.

You've already contradicted yourself as clearly the MEPs have done something i.e. made this proposal.

 

Any evidence to support your claim that the trip to Berlusconi's funeral by the right-wing block of MEPs was funded by the European parliament?

 

7 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

 

Who would ever have imagined that?????????

Who would have thought that a  Brexiter would let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to have a rant against the EU.

[RayC]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The EU's first instinct is always to over-regulate, restrict, impede, control. It's a Pavlovian response.

 

They have to justify their overpaid positions as faceless autocrats.

 

Thankfully, the UK left all that nonsense far behind.

 

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Exactly.

 

There are many horses in this race.

 

All the EU is doing is putting a 100kg jockey and a pair of Wellington boots on their own horse.  The Chinese and the Russians meanwhile have installed carbon fibre horseshoes and injected their horse with steroids. 

 

Nothing new here though. The EU is renowned for regulating the competitiveness out of it's member states. Unfortunately for them in this case, their influence ends at the EU's borders. 

Presumably we should therefore just let an unregulated market dictate where we go? Both the UK and US administrations - as well as the EU -  seem to think this a bad idea.

 

The EU and US have been holding bi-lateral discussions on AI regulation for some time. The UK, quite rightly, is keen to be involved but has largely been excluded as a result of Brexit.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The EU's first instinct is always to over-regulate, restrict, impede, control. It's a Pavlovian response.

 

They have to justify their overpaid positions as faceless autocrats.

 

Thankfully, the UK left all that nonsense far behind.

Pavlovian response you say.

[JonnyF]

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Presumably we should therefore just let an unregulated market dictate where we go? Both the UK and US administrations - as well as the EU -  seem to think this a bad idea.

Do you think China and Russia will stop because the EU and the US think it's a bad idea? It's just regulating yourself into a disadvantageous position. 

 

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

The EU and US have been holding bi-lateral discussions on AI regulation for some time. The UK, quite rightly, is keen to be involved but has largely been excluded as a result of Brexit.

Good. Another benefit of Brexit. I suspect the UK is making all the right noises politically about being involved but I very much doubt they do in reality. We don't need help from the US or the EU to create regulations, we have our own parliament to make them if that's the route we choose to take. Personally, I prefer the least amount of regulations. It's not like Skynet are suddenly going to wipe us all out with the T1000. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Do you think China and Russia will stop because the EU and the US think it's a bad idea? It's just regulating yourself into a disadvantageous position. 

 

Good. Another benefit of Brexit. I suspect the UK is making all the right noises politically about being involved but I very much doubt they do in reality. We don't need help from the US or the EU to create regulations, we have our own parliament to make them if that's the route we choose to take. Personally, I prefer the least amount of regulations. It's not like Skynet are suddenly going to wipe us all out with the T1000. 

‘The least amount of regulation’.

 

How many times does that need to be demonstrated as dangerous folly?

[RayC]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Do you think China and Russia will stop because the EU and the US think it's a bad idea? It's just regulating yourself into a disadvantageous position. 

If China and Russia do not sign up to Western regulations, then they will not be able to sell their products in our markets. How is that disadvantageous for Western companies? 

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Good. Another benefit of Brexit.

Good that the UK has, to date, had little input into the discussion about possible regulation in our two biggest (export) markets? As you say, another Brexit benefit.

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I suspect the UK is making all the right noises politically about being involved but I very much doubt they do in reality.

Any evidence to support that claim? The recent 'Atlantic Declaration' suggests that Sunak thinks otherwise.

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

We don't need help from the US or the EU to create regulations, we have our own parliament to make them if that's the route we choose to take.

Maybe the UK doesn't need help from outside in developing regulation, but the fact remains that if we diverge too far from EU and/or US regulation then we will not be able to export to their markets. Surely it is in our own interests to be involved as early as possible in developing that regulation?

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Personally, I prefer the least amount of regulations.

Regulation is not an end in itself but is a necessity on occasion

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It's not like Skynet are suddenly going to wipe us all out with the T1000. 

It appears that some people disagree

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12162909/Rishi-Sunaks-tech-adviser-warns-world-got-two-years-tame-artificial-intelligence.html