I admit that I am biased enough to immediately expect the AI agreement to be exactly what we need right now if this is how Meta reacts to it. Which I know is stupid because I genuinely have no idea what is in it.
If I'd were to guess Meta is going to have a problem with chapter 2 of "AI Code of Practice" because it deals with copyright law, and probably conflicts with their (and others approach) of ripping text out of copyrighted material (is it clear yet if it can be called fair use?)
District judge pretrial ruling on June 25th, I'd be surprised this doesn't get challenged soon in higher courts.
And acquiring the copyrighted materials is still illegal - this is not a blanket protection for all AI training on copyrighted materials
sorokod · 2h ago
Presumably it is Meta's growth they have in mind.
Edit: from the linked in post, Meta is concerned about the growth of European companies:
"We share concerns raised by these businesses that this over-reach will throttle the development and deployment of frontier AI models in Europe, and stunt European companies looking to build businesses on top of them."
isodev · 2h ago
Of course. Skimming over the AI Code of Practice, there is nothing particularly unexpected or qualifying as “overreach”. Of course, to be compliant, model providers can’t be shady which perhaps conflicts with Meta’s general way of work.
jahewson · 2h ago
There’s a summary of the guidelines here for anyone who is wondering:
It’s certainly onerous. I don’t see how it helps anyone except for big copyright holders, lawyers and bureaucrats.
No comments yet
ankit219 · 2h ago
Not just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of practice is voluntary and goes beyond what is in the act itself. EU published it in a way to say that there would be less scrutiny if you voluntarily sign up for this code of practice. Meta would anyway face scrutiny on all ends, so does not seem to a plausible case to sign something voluntary.
One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For open source, it's a very hard requirement[1].
> GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works.
Kaplan's LinkedIn post says absolutely nothing about what is objectionable about the policy. I'm inclined to think "growth-stunting" could mean anything as tame as mandating user opt-in for new features as opposed to the "opt-out" that's popular among US companies.
chvid · 2h ago
Why does meta need to sign anything? I thought the EU made laws that anyone operating in the EU including meta had to comply to.
AIPedant · 2h ago
It's not a law, it's a voluntary code of conduct given heft by EU endorsement.
FirmwareBurner · 2h ago
> it's a voluntary code of conduct
So then it's something completely worthless in the globally competitive cutthroat business world, that even the companies who signed won't follow, they just signed it for virtue signaling.
If you want companies to actually follow a rule, you make it a law and you send their CEOs to jail when they break it.
"Voluntary codes of conduct" have less value in the business world than toilet paper. Zuck was just tired of this performative bullshit and said the quiet part out loud.
AIPedant · 1h ago
No, it's a voluntary code of conduct so AI providers can start implementing changes before the conduct becomes a legal requirement, and so the code itself can be updated in the face of reality before legislators have to finalize anything. The EU does not have foresight into what reasonable laws should look like, they are nervous about unintended consequences, and they do not want to drive good-faith organizations away, they are trying to do this correctly.
This cynical take seems wise and world-weary but it is just plain ignorant, please read the link.
The biggest player in the industry welcomes regulation, in hopes it’ll pull the ladder up behind them that much further. A tale as old as red tape.
MPSFounder · 2h ago
LMAO. Facebook is not big? Its founder is literally the sleaziest CEO out there. Cambridge Analytica, Myanmar, restrictions on Palestine, etc. Let us not fool ourselves. There are those online who seek to defend a master that could care less about them. Fascinating.
My opinion on this: Europe lags behind in this field, and thus can enact regulations that profit the consumer. We need more of those in the US.
zamadatix · 2h ago
Meta isn't actually an AI company, as much as they'd like you to think they are now. They don't mind if nobody comes out as the big central leader in the space, they even release the weights for their models.
Ask Meta to sign something about voluntarily restricting ad data or something and you'll get your same result there.
jahewson · 2h ago
Sam has been very pro-regulation for a while now. Remember his “please regulate me” world tour?
nkmnz · 2h ago
OpenAI does direct business with government bodies. Not sure about Meta.
somenameforme · 2h ago
About 2 weeks ago OpenAI won a $200 million contract with the Defense Department. That's after partnering with Anduril for quote "national security missions." And all that is after the military enlisted OpenAI's "Chief Product Officer" and sent him straight to Lt. Colonel to work in a collaborative role directly with the military.
And that's the sort of stuff that's not classified. There's, with 100% certainty, plenty that is.
paul7986 · 2h ago
The US, China and others are sprinting and thus spiraling towards the majority of society's destitution unless we force these billionaires hands; figure out how we will eat and sustain our economies where one person is now doing a white or blue (Amazon warehouse robots) collar job that ten use to do.
lvl155 · 2h ago
I have a strong aversion to Meta and Zuck but EU is pretty tone-deaf. Everything they do reeks of political and anti-American tech undertone.
zeptonix · 2h ago
They're career regulators
vicnov · 2h ago
Just like GDPR, it will tremendously benefit big corporations (even if Meta is resistant) and those who are happy NOT to follow regulations (which is a lot of Chinese startups).
And consumers will bear the brunt.
renewiltord · 2h ago
Good. Europe is a regulatory morass. A waste of everyone's time. As their economies become irrelevant they will also stop mattering.
edhelas · 2h ago
Sent from an iPhone probably having USB-C because of the EU.
zeptonix · 2h ago
I'd deal with the odd lightning cable over having retarded popups on every website I ever visit
No comments yet
ars · 2h ago
Just because they occasionally (and even frequently) do good thing, does not mean that overall their policies don't harm them own economies.
renewiltord · 2h ago
I charge my phone wirelessly. The presence of a port isn't a positive for me. It's just a hole I could do without. The shape of the hole isn't important.
Besides, I posted from my laptop.
zeptonix · 2h ago
Good. As Elon says, the only thing the EU does export is regulation. Same geniuses that make us click 5 cookie pop-ups every webpage
cenamus · 2h ago
They didn't give us that. Mostly non-compliant websites gave us that.
spongebobstoes · 2h ago
that's deflecting responsibility. it's important to care about the actual effects of decisions, not hide behind the best case scenario. especially for governments.
in this case, it is clear that the EU policy resulted in cookie banners
rockemsockem · 2h ago
I'm surprised that most of the comments here are siding with Europe blindly?
Am I the only one who assumes by default that European regulation will be heavy-handed and ill conceived?
xandrius · 2h ago
If I've got to side blindly with any entity it is definitely not going to be Meta. That's all there is.
rockemsockem · 1h ago
I mean, ideally no one would side blindly at all :D
satellite2 · 2h ago
Well Europe haven't enacted policies actually breaking American monopolies until now.
Europeans are still essentially on Google, Meta and Amazon for most of their browsing experiences. So I'm assuming Europe's goal is not to compete or break American moat but to force them to be polite and to preserve national sovereignty on important national security aspects.
A position which is essentially reasonable if not too polite.
almatabata · 1h ago
> So I'm assuming Europe's goal is not to compete or break American moat but to force them to be polite and to preserve national sovereignty on important national security aspects.
When push comes to shove the US company will always prioritize US interest. If you want to stay under the US umbrella by all means. But honestly it looks very short sighted to me.
You have only one option. Grow alternatives. Fund your own companies. China managed to fund the local market without picking winners. If European countries really care, they need to do the same for tech.
If they don't they will forever stay under the influence of another big brother. It is US today, but it could be China tomorrow.
lovich · 2h ago
I’d side with Europe blindly over any corporation.
The European government has at least a passing interest in the well being of human beings while that is not valued by the incentives that corporations live by
rockemsockem · 1h ago
All corporations that exist everywhere make worse decisions than Europe is a weirdly broad statement to make.
andrepd · 2h ago
So you're surprised that people are siding with Europe blindly, but you're "assuming by default" that you should side with Meta blindly.
Perhaps it's easier to actually look at the points in contention to form your opinion.
rockemsockem · 1h ago
I don't remember saying anything about blindly deciding things being a good thing.
9dev · 2h ago
Maybe the others have put in a little more effort to understand the regulation before blindly criticising it? Similar to the GDPR, a lot of it is just common sense—if you don’t think that "the market" as represented by global mega-corps will just sort it out, that is.
rockemsockem · 1h ago
I'm specifically referring to several comments that say they have not read the regulation at all, but think it must be good if Meta opposes it.
Alupis · 2h ago
Our friends in the EU have a long history of well-intentioned but misguided policy and regulations, which has led to stunted growth in their tech sector.
Maybe some think that is a good thing - and perhaps it may be - but I feel it's more likely any regulation regarding AI at this point in time is premature, doomed for failure and unintended consequences.
9dev · 2h ago
Yet at the same time, they also have a long history of very successful policy, such as the USB-C issue, but also the GDPR, which has raised the issue of our right to privacy all over the world.
How long can we let AI go without regulation? Just yesterday, there was a report here on Delta using AI to squeeze higher ticket prices from customers. Next up is insurance companies. How long do you want to watch? Until all accountability is gone for good?
rockemsockem · 1h ago
I mean, getting USB-C to be usable on everything is like a nice-to-have, I wouldn't call it "very successful policy".
9dev · 41m ago
It’s just an example. The EU has often, and often successfully, pushed for standardisation to the benefit of end users.
Alupis · 15m ago
Which... has the consequences of stifling innovation. Regulations/policy is two-way street.
Who's to say USB-C is the end-all-be-all connector? We're happy with it today, but Apple's Lightning connector had merit. What if two new, competing connectors come out in a few year's time?
The EU regulation, as-is, simply will not allow a new technically superior connector to enter the market. Fast forward a decade when USB-C is dead, EU will keep it limping along - stifling more innovation along the way.
Standardization like this is difficult to achieve via consensus - but via policy/regulation? These are the same governing bodies that hardly understand technology/internet. Normally standardization is achieved via two (or more) competing standards where one eventually "wins" via adoption.
Well intentioned, but with negative side-effects.
ars · 2h ago
> GDPR
You mean that thing (or is that another law?) that forces me to find that "I really don't care in the slightest" button about cookies on every single page?
junto · 2h ago
No, the laws that ensures that private individuals have the power to know what is stored about them, change incorrect data, and have it deleted unless legally necessary to hold it - all in a timely manner and financially penalize companies that do not.
cenamus · 2h ago
That's not the GDPR.
zeptonix · 2h ago
Everything in this thread even remotely anti-EU-regulation is being extreme downvoted
rockemsockem · 1h ago
Yeah it's kinda weird.
Feels like I need to go find a tech site full of people who actually like tech instead of hating it.
I did not read it yet, only familiar with the previous AI Act https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ .
If I'd were to guess Meta is going to have a problem with chapter 2 of "AI Code of Practice" because it deals with copyright law, and probably conflicts with their (and others approach) of ripping text out of copyrighted material (is it clear yet if it can be called fair use?)
Yes.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrig...
Though the EU has its own courts and laws.
And acquiring the copyrighted materials is still illegal - this is not a blanket protection for all AI training on copyrighted materials
Edit: from the linked in post, Meta is concerned about the growth of European companies:
"We share concerns raised by these businesses that this over-reach will throttle the development and deployment of frontier AI models in Europe, and stunt European companies looking to build businesses on top of them."
https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/introduction-to-code-of...
It’s certainly onerous. I don’t see how it helps anyone except for big copyright holders, lawyers and bureaucrats.
No comments yet
One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For open source, it's a very hard requirement[1].
> GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works.
[1] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-r...
So then it's something completely worthless in the globally competitive cutthroat business world, that even the companies who signed won't follow, they just signed it for virtue signaling.
If you want companies to actually follow a rule, you make it a law and you send their CEOs to jail when they break it.
"Voluntary codes of conduct" have less value in the business world than toilet paper. Zuck was just tired of this performative bullshit and said the quiet part out loud.
This cynical take seems wise and world-weary but it is just plain ignorant, please read the link.
https://openai.com/global-affairs/eu-code-of-practice/
Ask Meta to sign something about voluntarily restricting ad data or something and you'll get your same result there.
And that's the sort of stuff that's not classified. There's, with 100% certainty, plenty that is.
And consumers will bear the brunt.
No comments yet
Besides, I posted from my laptop.
in this case, it is clear that the EU policy resulted in cookie banners
Am I the only one who assumes by default that European regulation will be heavy-handed and ill conceived?
Europeans are still essentially on Google, Meta and Amazon for most of their browsing experiences. So I'm assuming Europe's goal is not to compete or break American moat but to force them to be polite and to preserve national sovereignty on important national security aspects.
A position which is essentially reasonable if not too polite.
When push comes to shove the US company will always prioritize US interest. If you want to stay under the US umbrella by all means. But honestly it looks very short sighted to me.
After seeing this news https://observer.co.uk/news/columnists/article/the-networker..., how can you have any faith that they will play nice?
You have only one option. Grow alternatives. Fund your own companies. China managed to fund the local market without picking winners. If European countries really care, they need to do the same for tech.
If they don't they will forever stay under the influence of another big brother. It is US today, but it could be China tomorrow.
The European government has at least a passing interest in the well being of human beings while that is not valued by the incentives that corporations live by
Perhaps it's easier to actually look at the points in contention to form your opinion.
Maybe some think that is a good thing - and perhaps it may be - but I feel it's more likely any regulation regarding AI at this point in time is premature, doomed for failure and unintended consequences.
How long can we let AI go without regulation? Just yesterday, there was a report here on Delta using AI to squeeze higher ticket prices from customers. Next up is insurance companies. How long do you want to watch? Until all accountability is gone for good?
Who's to say USB-C is the end-all-be-all connector? We're happy with it today, but Apple's Lightning connector had merit. What if two new, competing connectors come out in a few year's time?
The EU regulation, as-is, simply will not allow a new technically superior connector to enter the market. Fast forward a decade when USB-C is dead, EU will keep it limping along - stifling more innovation along the way.
Standardization like this is difficult to achieve via consensus - but via policy/regulation? These are the same governing bodies that hardly understand technology/internet. Normally standardization is achieved via two (or more) competing standards where one eventually "wins" via adoption.
Well intentioned, but with negative side-effects.
You mean that thing (or is that another law?) that forces me to find that "I really don't care in the slightest" button about cookies on every single page?
Feels like I need to go find a tech site full of people who actually like tech instead of hating it.