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