"Google Bard blocks all European Union countries" more like "Google Bard illegal in the European Union", like it is a Google choice at all.
Big win for those who care about privacy over all else.
Otherwise that seems like a non-sequitur.
If you are, it seems that US's advantage [2] is just sheer number of people since the growth/capita is the same [1].
[1]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat... [2]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locat...
I can understand hating Google and hating our current mode of capitalism, but it’s a little hard to understand making such an obviously false claim. Do you believe what you said? Or is it just edgelordism?
You should see how many European banks don't bother to comply with the US law in Europe, and just block US citizens in Europe from having accounts in Europe.
FTFY
Now, please explain why do you think that the US should expose their regulations to foreign banks operating in foreign countries?
You're so close to getting it.
My Google complies with local data protections and regulations as mandated by law.
>It seems that there are not enough US customers around here.
So you're telling me it's okay not to comply with a regulation because the market doesn't justify it and not because you're cartoonishly evil? Interesting. I wonder if we could apply that principle to other circumstances.
What comes to european banks not wanting to do anything with US related entities, my understanding is that the primary reason is the non-trivial amount of red tape and legal risks associated with US entities weighted against relatively small amoumt of pontential customers.
That's also the reason why some corporations don't bother with GPDR!
It seems you are also describing GDPR
See also: the recent sesame controversy
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914946
If you look further down that thread, people also highlighted they included more countries with “adequacy,” i.e., that the EU considers having a comparable privacy regime.
They do comply with that. They can also comply with this.
I think it all boils down to opportunity costs. Implementing a system that will ensure that the models are fully retrained from raw corpus/logs within the required timeframe simply takes time. Time they don't have since openai and MS are pressing them in that front.
I think some teams at Google will work in the background to ensure that the whole shebang will be GDPR compliant while in parallel google signals to the markets that they are not a dying giant
The difference is that Google seems to care more (perhaps because they are under bigger scrutiny) while MS and OpenAI are pulling a "better to ask forgiveness than ask permissions".
Funny how no matter what you do you're damned.
If google decides to just roll it out everywhere like openai and bing did and then wait until a complaint or a lawsuit comes and only then pull the solution out of the hat (you just got several months for free in order to work on a solution while waiting for the complaint or lawsuit), well if google does that they'd be criticised because they do that. If they pause the relevant markets, well they're criticised because it's "immoral to be just complying with weaker laws since there is a stronger law somewhere else that should be taken as example for everyone"
Result : every exec immediately stops everything until this is clarified. They have to, it's their legal duty and if we are talking Google scale revenues there's a lot at stake. Many shareholders are waiting to sue...
[1]: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/05/11/meps-push-to-b...