upvote

points

by spwa43 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby RandomLensman3 hours ago|
next
[-]
1) Would that fine print be binding?

2) What actual law/regulation would that currently be that would be used for such an outright refusal?

3) Would that comply with current regulation?

reply
upvoteby cucumber37328421 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Have you ever dealt with a government or government adjacent company?

It'll be spec'd out so that it's cheaper to bend over and take it than take it to court and prove them wrong.

reply
upvoteby RandomLensman1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What's an example of a government adjacent company? And was that in a civil law country?
reply
upvoteby spwa42 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> 1) Would that fine print be binding?

For government, because it's in law or regulations (ministerial decisions in Europe). For large companies "You agreed to it" (you know, like you agreed to allow Verizon to sell your location data to Palantir)

The other 2 questions I don't understand. My point is that the EU AI directive makes this possible. Makes it possible in ONE direction, while prohibiting the other. AI can be used by government and large companies to spam you and deal with you, and can't be used by you without being 100% up front about that to them (ie. enabling refusal)

reply
upvoteby RandomLensman2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
1) Laws need parliament, no?

Just agreeing to it isn't necessarily enough at least in some countries.

2) What laws and sections specifically makes that possible? Are there examples of that happening?

3) Where can I find that interpretation of article 50(?)? Some other article? (To the extent that things would need to be labelled/watermarked etc.)

reply
upvoteby spwa42 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
1) Laws need parliament, no?

No. Here is the list of organizations that have the power to make laws in the EU (and JUST the across-the-EU part of that list, within countries, within states, within provinces, within towns there's another list). This is referred to in legal tradition as the "Hierarchy of norms", because there is also a clear order defined.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/eu-hiera...

reply
upvoteby RandomLensman2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think you need to be more precise then on what you mean by "law" and differentiate there and also by what authorises that.
reply
upvoteby pas2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
this seems exactly the usual anti-consumer bullshit that is regulated state-by-state (or sometimes by (lack of) FCC/FTC effort, or by the CFPB that is now a zombie)

however, AI doesn't really influence this. already there's a lot of problem with things like Ticketmaster, Apple's walled garden, abuses of IP law (patent trolls, DMCA trolls), etc.

the insurance industry is a prime example of this. the suffering caused by power imbalance is incomprehensible, and yet there's not enough political will to address this.

sure, it's easily possible that some important aspects of our everyday lives will be worsened by bad AI regulation. but IMHO this is wholly an upstream problem, it's a symptom of bad politics. (a byproduct of the Zip2 to Tesla to "democracy with roman salute characteristics" pipeline.)

that said, obviously the foundation to have any chance of a nonpatological market to exist is that self-hosting has to be legal.

reply