Hacker News Reader

Comment by thih9 | Hacker News Reader

> Nvidia wouldn’t say where this training data came from, but at least one report — and lawsuit — alleges that the company trained on copyrighted YouTube videos without permission.

Under the EU's AI act[1] there is now a legal obligation to disclose the source of the training data. Is this correct then that either the models cannot be used in the EU, or we'll get to know where the training data came from?

[1]: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-fil... - "General-purpose AI systems, and the GPAI models such as ChatGPT they are based on, must meet certain transparency requirements including compliance with EU copyright law and publishing detailed summaries of the content used for training."

View on HN

Unfortunately the solution is quite simple - don’t release in EU.

People keep saying this, but I've yet to see a company follow through.

I am from EU and we have been getting a lot of things much later and having to use VPNs to get past this. Sometimes even a VPN is not enough since we need US phone number etc. Couldn't get access to Claude and OpenAI advanced voice mode for a long time. It feels very frustrating since others can already start building with cutting edge things, giving them a huge advantage.

Yes, unfortunately in this world not being "ethically constrained" can give you a big advantage. Still doesn't mean one should not strive to do the right thing.

It is subjective.

If your ethics is innately tied to the nuance of fringe intellectual property law in a brand new domain, it may be time to relax some things

That is to say, a lax perspective of intellectual property law can be less or more ethical than one which supports the undeterred corporate collation of powers behind those laws.

Those in control do not have a monopoly on ethical goodness.

In this case the potentially infringed parties would be YouTube creators, who in most cases are not corporations or backed by them.

(I myself personally happen to think it's fine to train a commercial AI on content from the internet like this, but the framing of your argument just feels misleading or even manipulative. "Copyright" -> "IP law" -> "big business" -> "bad vibes", when for cases like this the affected people are almost all small individuals and the responsible entities are almost all big corporations.)

Have yet to see a case where they didn’t also include the UK and other decidedly none EU states, which makes me think this has little to do with regulation and more trying to manage load during the initial release. Regulation is of course an amazing scape goat, especially if one intended to convince people against any legislation not written by and for the current front runners of the industry.

It looks like opportunity.

Meta and Apple both declined to release AI tools in the EU due to regulations:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/meta-follows...

“Delayed” seems more accurate. At least Apple already released some AI features and plans to release more later this year.

> Mac users in the EU can access Apple Intelligence in U.S. English with macOS Sequoia 15.1. This April, Apple Intelligence features will start to roll out to iPhone and iPad users in the EU.

https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2024/10/apple-intelligence...

I live in the EU and pretty much every major AI tool gets either delayed or not released here, it is terrible.

Another anecdote, I don’t mind. I’m happy to let the rest of the world beta test AI, I’ll wait and enjoy more transparency (and perhaps a more polished experience).

Then again I’m not a pro AI user and I was never in a situation when I wanted to use an AI product and it wasn’t available.

Or just lie

Short term: fine; long term: fines.

No problem. If you are in EU, you upload your input to a server located in US, that way EU law can watch you do that.

> This Regulation applies to:

> (a) providers placing on the market or putting into service AI systems or placing on the market general-purpose AI models in the Union, irrespective of whether those providers are established or located within the Union or in a third country;

That would not work. It's the company who's responsible for compliance with EU laws and regulations in this case, not the user. So, if the company allows EU users they are de facto operating in the EU and thus out of compliance with the training data transparency law cited above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com