Sam Altman Says OpenAI Will Leave the EU If There's Any Real AI Regulation

Glance at it and she looks like a renter or typical youth of a city with tourism but poor purchasing power/ social mobility, but stare a bit longer and relax your focus and she becomes an incumbent who doesn't move with the market or times

Now that the harm is done (speculation on housing priced out teachers and low income workers, old, niche stores turned into tourist traps), we finally have regulation. A bit too late. But at least the mayor is adding 20k housing units (+20%), driving the price down and making speculators eat a fat loss.

Uber was regulated much faster so it's impact have mostly been positive, unless you've been raped by a predator as they used to not check their drivers.

You have to regulate ahead of time, even if it's soft and toothless in the beginning. Check the EU proposal to regulate AI, it seems really, really soft.

More than 87M people were profiled, and more than 3M people were targeted by Cambridge Analytica in 11 key states during the election to feed them the content that would swing their indecision towards Trump based on their psychological profile and preferences.

Trump paid for that, and Michigan and Pennsylvania and New Hampshire were all very close.

To boldly state that CA had no impact on US elections, Brexit and I don't remember which South American election when the people involved in it literally sold it and used previous results as evidence seems a bit of a stretch.

I might be wrong, but there's no clear way of knowing unless votes were not anonymous.

Basically, if there's no rule saying I can't do it, then I should do it, until rules are developed to stop it; regardless of the morality or danger.

I suspect that one way to make people more careful, is to make future rules and regulations retroactive.

For example, if I had developed a fintech product that was a legal ponzi scheme, or a downloader that is a legal way of accessing copyrighted material, because of loopholes, and those loopholes are closed, after the fact (happens all the time), then, if the new remedies can be applied to the "legal" implementations that were in effect before the closing of the loopholes, I suspect that it would make the "loopholer" a wee bit more cautious.

But that won't happen. There's way too many ways that it could go off the rails.

So people will keep on bending, folding, spindling, and mutilating, until they are stopped by a steel door, slamming down in front of them.

I strongly suspect that a lot of companies are set up to harvest as much as possible, before the door slams, so they can reap the benefits.

it... might?

it possibly existing in the future is not a good reason to lay down and just surrender control of world governance to ChatGPT today

And the HN discussion

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33561222

The principles for satisfying “best efforts” standard have been enumerated as follows:

* "Best efforts" imposes a higher obligation than a legal "reasonable effort".

* "Best efforts" means taking, in good faith, all reasonable steps to achieve the objective, carrying the process to its logical conclusion and leaving no stone unturned. However, it does not require a party to sacrifice itself totally to the economic interests of the party to whom the duty is owed, although the interests of the other party must predominate.

* "Best efforts" includes doing everything known to be usual, necessary and proper for ensuring the success of the endeavour.

* The meaning of "best efforts" is, however, not boundless. It must be approached in the light of the particular contract, the parties to it and the contract's overall purpose as reflected in its language.

* While "best efforts" of the defendant must be subject to such overriding obligations as honesty and fair dealing, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted in bad faith.

* Evidence of "inevitable failure" is relevant to the issue of causation of damage but not to the issue of liability. The onus to show that failure was inevitable regardless of whether the defendant made "best efforts" rests on the defendant.

* Evidence that the defendant, had it acted diligently, could have satisfied the "best efforts" test, is relevant evidence that the defendant did not use its best efforts.

Mere reasonable efforts will not suffice to meet the “best efforts” standard. Neither will occasional efforts made from time to time suffice. A higher level of effort is required.

Examples of situations where the standard was not met include:

* Contract for the purchase and sale of a house required the purchaser to obtain financing. Court found that the purchaser failed to do so because he applied for a loan for an inflated sum (by 60%), delayed the loan application, and that true reason for these actions was that the purchaser simply did not want to buy the property because he received a negative appraisal of it.

* Contract for the purchase and sale of land. The contract required the vendor use best efforts to obtain subdivision approvals. Obtaining approvals was also a condition precedent in the agreement, meaning that the parties could walk away from the transaction if the approvals were not obtained. The vendor hired an agent to obtain approvals, but the agent failed to advance the process. As time went on, the price of the land went up and the vendor notified the purchaser that it ought to be discharged from the obligation to close the transaction due to not receiving approvals. The Court found that the Vendors did not use best efforts. The court commented that to satisfy the standard, one must show progress, as well as reasonable and sensible response to roadblocks.

Examples of where the standard was met:

* An agreement to lease required tenants to obtain a business license to operate a car dealership on best-efforts basis. The tenants submitted an application within 3 days of signing the lease, did so accurately, but were told that the process would take significantly longer than anticipated. Best efforts standard was met.

Generally, there are more decisions where this standard is found to not have been not met than where it was met. Shy of impossibility, the best efforts standard imposes onerous obligations on the party that agrees to be bound by such a clause.

-----

The right to be forgotten does not apply to data that is not being processed, so your backup situation is clear too and if you ask then you get pretty clear answers. Obviously if you restore the backup you would be expected to re-process right to be forgotten requests, which can be stored for the duration of your backup.

Your lawyer has well and truly convinced you that it's difficult, it's not, and if you have a serious question; you can send it to your countries DPO office: https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/data-protection/refer...

The backup question, for example, was clearly (publicly) answered by France's DPO.

To be clear here: I don't think you've actually interacted at all with the apparatus surrounding GDPR. It's not my lawyers who are loud, it's lawyer consultants- it's lawyers of companies who's business model is not compliant (trading personal data). It's people in the US and UK who are trying to spread as much uncertainty as possible to either make the EU look incompetent or non-competitive and/or weaken the bloc.

It's absurdly easy to be compliant. For all the whinging, if you're taking the necessary steps to secure data that you should have always been taking, and you don't sell peoples data, then the only thing you need to bake in is a "delete account" function- even things like legal records are exempt so transaction logs are not subject to GDPR. Just read the text.