I had a conversation with a peer recently on AI Regulation. I assume its pointless to try to regulate it because the world is .. well.. big and there is no barrier to entry.<p>We can regulate nuclear weapons because the average person can't build one even if the instructions arn't online.<p>I think regulating AI is pointless because if we make AI research illegal in 99.99% of countries, some country somewhere will develop it and thats the end of that regulation.<p>Can we do anything other than hope our AI Overlords are kind?
Page 11:<p>>> Businesses or public authorities that develop or use AI applications that constitute a high risk
for the safety or fundamental rights of citizens would have to comply with specific
requirements and obligations. Compliance with these requirements would imply costs
amounting to approximately EUR € 6000 to EUR € 7000 for the supply of an average highrisk AI system of around EUR € 170000 by 2025. For AI users, there would also be the
annual cost for the time spent on ensuring human oversight where this is appropriate,
depending on the use case. Those have been estimated at approximately EUR € 5000 to EUR
€ 8000 per year. Verification costs could amount to another EUR € 3000 to EUR € 7500 for
suppliers of high-risk AI.<p>Lmao bureaucrats estimating the cost to companies, delusional.<p>>> The Commission will be in
charge of monitoring the effects of the proposal. It will establish a system for registering
stand-alone high-risk AI applications in a public EU-wide database<p>>> Title II establishes a list of prohibited AI. The regulation follows a risk-based approach,
differentiating between uses of AI that create (i) an unacceptable risk, (ii) a high risk, and (iii)
low or minimal risk. The list of prohibited practices in Title II comprises all those AI systems
whose use is considered unacceptable as contravening Union values, for instance by violating
fundamental rights.<p>>> Title V contributes to the objective to create a legal framework that is innovation-friendly,
future-proof and resilient to disruption.<p>Innovation friendly lol.<p>>> At Union level, the
proposal establishes a European Artificial Intelligence Board (the ‘Board’),<p>>> Title IX creates a framework for the creation of codes of conduct, which aim to encourage
providers of non-high-risk AI systems to apply voluntarily the mandatory requirements for
high-risk AI systems (<p>"To apply VOLUNTARILY the MANDATORY.." what kind of double speak is that? How can something be voluntary and mandatory at the same time...<p>>> AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by public
authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of
certain groups. They may violate the right to dignity and non-discrimination and the
values of equality and justice. Such AI systems evaluate or classify the trustworthiness
of natural persons based on their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known or
predicted personal or personality characteristics. The social score obtained from such
AI systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or
whole groups thereof in social contexts, which are unrelated to the context in which
the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is
disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. Such AI
systems should be therefore prohibited.<p>This part is good.<p>I haven't read the rest.<p>EU shooting itself in the foot again and then asking themselves why all talent goes to USA.