The EU has begun enforcing the AI Act: first RFIs to model providers
tokenstead.ai
tokenstead.ai
Regulation that cannot practically be implemented or complied with (example: forks of open models), this leads to selective enforcement and by extension corruption and loss of rule of law.
Regulation before the market has even settled down, we don't know if AI will be datacenter only, or open models everybody forks, modifies and runs locally.
And we won't know for a couple for years to come.
> Regulation before the market has even settled down
The counter point would be: the major AI providers have seemingly also lost control of their creation. So at the very least both sides are doing things before they fully understand what they are doing. Also, looking at the (planned) IPOs and the share of AI in S&P 500, one could argue that while the market hasn’t settled, it already is a massive market. When should we start regulating? Eventually it will be too late
> Regulation that cannot practically be implemented or complied with
Yes. Having worked with one EU authority, it’s still people who eventually do the enforcing. That has the risk of corruption but I have also seen repeatedly that they won’t do something if it violates common sense. As always, there is room for interpretation and enforcement and it will be used. Like with any good governance. And companies still can (and do!) sue
The age of written expertise influence is over.
WWW? GSM? Bluetooth? Linux? SSH? MP3? LiIon batteries? Chip wafer manufacturing methods? Skype?
I do think it’s most likely that they will end up fining the AI companies quite a bit under this act. It seems like a bit of a pattern with European legislation that disproportionately impacts American tech companies.
But conspiracy theory don't have to make sense in the first place.
"Mistral’s platform will support third-party open models, starting with Z.ai’s GLM-5.2. This and future open models will run on the same infrastructure, regional controls, and service commitments as Mistral models, so customers can broaden model choice without fragmenting where their AI runs."
"European Compute Units, or ECUs, convert those commitments into access to Mistral-built infrastructure over multiple years."
https://mistral.ai/news/regional-inference-open-models-new-c...
It’s a little bit like saying “sysadmins need work visas and vetting, but this guy works for free, so just give him root and don’t think too hard about it”.
I don't think the current US administration has shown themselves to be less hostile than China...
The American public, of various creeds and political orientations is as, if honestly not more skeptical of US tech companies. They simply have no control over their government, which is captured by tech CEOs.
The recent anti datacenter activism extends to IIRC over 40 states now and has roughly 70% largely bipartisan support.
But that only explains that Americans want regulation, not that they want EU regulation.
Americans put innovation and result ahead while Europe prefers precaution/fairness first.
There are real costs for Europe in terms of productivity because of this. Take a look at the Draghi report.
Also see European founders relocating and citing regulation as a problem when it comes to access to capital.
Similar arguments were made to defend Harvey Weinstein.
> And yes, if you feel that strongly, you absolutely do have the option to vote with your feet at any time.
People shouldn’t have to switch jobs because they don’t want to provide Bill Gates with their phone number.
We're now comparing a SaaS product versus people you work with? I don't think ChatGPT will ever physically assault you.
> People shouldn’t have to switch jobs because they don’t want to provide Bill Gates with their phone number.
This is why the EU has very strong employee protection laws; in most countries here there are government agencies that will help you, you're not at the mercy of the HR department.
Umm Because of worker protection laws? For example the Betriebsrat has the right to have a say in this. Second what if the product is very much inferior and the whole company would be more productive with another product?
> You are being paid to work there.
Yes and that means if I see an improvement opportunity or if I have concerns I will voice them. I'm being paid to improve the company, not be a cog in the machine.
And regarding fines, well the track record for EU fines against any big tech companies, US or China, is abysmal. Even if the companies are fined, the fine goes uncollected or is slashed after the big press release.
I am looking as the DSA here...
"The obligations set out in paragraph 1, points (a) and (b), shall not apply to providers of AI models that are released under a free and open-source licence that allows for the access, usage, modification, and distribution of the model, and whose parameters, including the weights, the information on the model architecture, and the information on model usage, are made publicly available. 2This exception shall not apply to general-purpose AI models with systemic risks."
https://ai-act-law.eu/article/53/
The why is under:
https://ai-act-law.eu/recital/102/
So the chinese models aren't exactly open like in the EU wants them to be
The reality is Europe will tend towards stagnation while other superpowers continue trudging on, some with their help of their governments while others, even despite themselves and their governments.
https://www.trouw.nl/opinie/wil-europa-geen-openluchtmuseum-...
https://www.theprincetontory.com/is-europe-an-open-air-museu...
https://www.investmentofficer.lu/en/columns/gregory-kennedy/...
Everything else you might have a point. The EU behaves as if it has influence over companies abroad. Then its strategy might work and do some good. Sadly this is not the case. Instead we are getting isolated and loosing the AI battle bad while bureaucracy and regulations forces inventors to leave.
Britain has left it and that's made a negative difference to our productivity. Large home markets are critical, when your two major competitors have large home markets.
Taxes and social services are cultural things in Europe, based on us understanding what a good way to use the wealth technology has given is. America understands this as well - it spends more on state healthcare than Europe does (yes, PPP adjusted), just not universally available.
And as sad of a story as it is, it's nothing compared to what Orange did. It will be a good showcase for the future how business is not the economy.
If you can't you are no better than the russian and right-wing americans that push anti-EU propaganda.
The EU would rather cruise off into perceived comfort and safety rather than attempt to stay relevant economically and on the world stage. Only when the region is unable to afford its own welfare will it start wondering where things went wrong.
We could rephrase this as "the shareholders aren't maximizing their value and the average Joe doesn't have a problem with it".
A mindset shift away from the very mindset you espouse is what is necessary for the EU to succeed.
It doesn't matter how good or bad your legislation is when you are always facing an uphill battle against a better capitalized company serving a bigger market, especially in a sector which, despite its name, has very little technology in it, and hence little barriers besides marketing and network effect.
It's true that in the last 10 years that vision feels like it has crumbled. And the inevitableness of competition is coming back. International law and human rights are dissolving - rule based on power. This works well for anyone while it works for them - except for our souls, and longer term... It's hubristic and eventually empires fall. Europe has already experienced this, and remembers it.
Whether these empires will fall to global economic collapse from lack of co-operation, or environmental destruction from lack of charging for externalities, or from global war, or simply from out of control AI, remains to be seen.
But never question, it is possible to avoid all those. But we have to try to, not just cheaply go "competition good", because of the short term thrill of the win. Competition is good, and so is cooperation.
While the EU is twiddling its thumbs about copyright, it is shooting its own side in the foot during the most important race in human history.
The pure absurdity of this is a reflection of how the EU routinely chooses short term safety and good vibes over long term prosperity and success. This mindset is why the EU has been utterly unable to compete for years -- and now, they want to impose their failed model on the actually successful Western companies.
But ultimately, to avoid the dangers of AI, a control treaty of which the only similar historical example was nuclear weapons, will be needed between the US and China. And perhaps, Europe would be better at negotiating that if it was all three.
Meanwhile, legislating to label deepfakes, and evaluating models for safety, should hardly be controversial. And in an ideal world, the US and China would agree and be collaborating with Europe on doing that, not whining about it. That includes reform of copyright.
This is a technology that will give the victor control over the future of humanity forever, and the ability to lock out any competitors from reaching the same level of capability.
Do you really think China would sign any agreement here in good faith? It would be hopelessly naive to negotiate a slowdown and assume that China is not lying through their teeth and accelerating internally. The stakes are too high - we would do the same.
The only option is to win the race, because no entity is naively trusting enough to risk losing this race.
Of course it won't happen without the threat of mutual annihilation, but superintelligent AI provides that threat.
As to how... Obviously you have to be smart and tough and invent mechanisms to make it work without trust. Plan A has a bunch of ideas to start with https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
This feels like it needs a lot of asterisks. A race implies someone will win it - how exactly is China winning by making those models freely available? "The West" can use that tech, it's not locked away in some vault.
Obviously China will not release models if they ever get far ahead of the US's best models in capability. You can't seriously think that "free models" will remain the game plan if they take an indisputable lead?
Why would we need to worry about China getting far ahead of US models given the spending trajectory of US companies? If China does get ahead, US companies will just keep pumping more money into the problem to keep the race going. But to what end? LLMs are not going to morph into AGI, that will be a new paradigm.
For most people, the best LLM is the one that is cheapest to them, as models are incredibly good. I'd wager ~90% of people using AI today wouldn't be able to differentiate GPT Sol from GLM 5.3 Flash in their day-to-day usage. The models are already good enough today for most workloads, next year's model won't change that.
If China gets to superintelligence first, the EU is cooked. This is a regime that has permanently disappeared tens of thousands of their human rights lawyers.
> will just keep pumping more money into the problem to keep the race going
Do you think taxing the US companies at 3% of global turnover and twiddling thumbs over copyright helps or hurts the West in the race to superintelligence?
> most workloads, next year's model won't change that.
"Most workloads" are irrelevant, the models matter only at the edge of the hardest problems they can solve, you are thinking of these models like any other technology when they will soon solve incredibly difficult problems that may give one country a real edge over the other.
If it's as dangerous as you say, the first country that will get to this will be in big trouble, regardless of who they are.
> Do you think taxing the US companies at 3% of global turnover and twiddling thumbs over copyright helps or hurts the West in the race to superintelligence?
Global turnover taxation was meant to prevent companies using creative accounting to not pay taxes, not to hurt "the West".
> they will soon solve incredibly difficult problems that may give one country a real edge over the other
What is this based on aside from AI hype?
We'd need quite some changes in the EU to focus on actually winning at something again. Winning at the expense of some of the lofty ideals. I'd rather EU have a decent frontier model lab that plays to win, and steps on toes while doing so, than have a very elaborate bureaucracy that tries to prevent that from happening. Its no surprise the bureaucrats have the exactly opposite goals, and its sad that most of the population won't see the consequences of this conflict of interest until it's too late to do anything -- because the Americans and the Chinese have near AGI capabilities, plentiful energy sources, and, really, not a lot of reasons to remember where Europe is on the map.
What in the AI Act makes it hard to develop frontier models?
I am already receiving notices from some EU countries that they will want sit downs on how we use AI, and apparently they have the right to demand access to detailed designs and source codes. Fine, whatever, a waste of time, but why would anyone start an AI company here, knowing that there will be bureaucrats focused on making that startup's life harder? Considering AI talent is mobile I'd think a lot of such talent will just hop on a plane and have their startup somewhere less overregulated.
China reaches ever forward because they aren’t afraid to use power to crack down on anti-social or against the interests of the nation.
The US population into squeamish. Even nowadays as the sort of enlightenment liberal/libertarian culture amongst the US population starts to waver.
I suspect liberal democracy will slowly be on its way out over the coming decades in the west. It has proven to be too obstructionist against the desires of the elite class.
The worst part is, those people can't be voted out. Because of how EU works, the bureaucrats have an upper hand over the elected officials, and because of lavish compensation for the said elected officials, mostly bad people get elected anyway - those whos domestic careers have ended, or those whose parties want out of active politics, and somewhere "safe" where they can earn good money without causing any trouble. Thats a horrible system.
Confidently wrong on this one; it has been very helpful for me to both extract data as well as exercise my right to be forgotten from various providers that would otherwise have no obligation to delete my data.