[Rinzler89]

It's sad the comments here bashing this haven't understood the regulation, or haven't even read it and are just slamming it because in their mind EU REGULATION=BAD, AI=GOOD INNOVATION.

EU AI regulation isn't there to stop AI innovation, it's only there to restrict where and when AI can be used on decisions that affect people. For example, you can't deny someone healthcare, a bank account, a rental, unemployment payments, or a job, just because "computer says NO"[1].

I don't understand how people can be against this kind of regulation, especially knowing how biased and discriminatory AI can be made to be while also being a convenient scapegoat for poor policies implemented by lazy people in charge: "you see your honor it wasn't our policies and implementation that were discriminatory and ruined lives, it was the AI's fault, not ours".

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0YGZPycMEU

[Yizahi]

People who are supporting the most egregious overreach by corpos, don't think that they themselves will ever be harmed by such corpo. But just in case if they ever become a multitrillionaire genius innovator, they proactively don't want some pesky laws to restrict their potential future mansions and giant yachts.

[fakedang]

This right here describes the sentiment of a lot of folks on this site. I surmise a lot of folks here bashing the regulations wouldn't be too happy if say an AI HR decided that their performance was below par, and then when their job search later gets affected by some AI recruiter who eliminates based on resume keywords (well it's already happening today).

[sschueller]

People also don't realize that this can happen without AI (insurance companies data mining for example) so such a law is a good thing.

[input_sh]

Data mining was already addressed. There's a copyright exception that says you can data mine publicly accessible stuff, as well as outlining who can do that and for what purposes (mostly scientific).

2019 Directive for Copyright in the Digital Single Market, articles 3 and 4. The two regulations kinda complement each other.

[ideashower]

By chance, is there a list anywhere of the various regulations the EU has implemented to regulate tech companies? It's really phenomenal work, and I'd love to read about the arc of it all.

[yinser]

Most of the comments here recognize the risks of vague and broad language versus writing targeted legislation for current problems and updating as things progress.

[Yizahi]

So vague and broad private data scrapping and private data selling is fine, but vague and broad laws restring said activities is not?

PS: by private I mean licensed by any license except for "free for all" and/or completely private.

[margalabargala]

Commenting after you, I don't see any critical comments that criticize vague language, and certainly none provide examples. There seem two sorts of comments here:

1) commenters who read the article, and are generally in favor, as it is neither vague nor broad, and instead celebrating it as targeted legislation for current problems that can be updated.

2) commenters who did not read the article, and are having exactly the knee-jerk reaction the person you replied to is describing.

Here are some examples of the second sort of comment:

> EU legislators are totally detached from reality, it can be seen that they do not understand what is the matter with AI, for them it is just "another IT tool" that can be "regulated". As always: US innovates, EU regulates.

> EU tech legislation is comical at this point. A bunch of rules that almost nobody follows and at best they fine FAANG companies a few hours of revenue.

Note how neither actually mentions anything substantial beyond the headline.