danielfoster

Meh. It’s just another Kindle. It would be nice to see Amazon be a bit more revolutionary or daring.

Yes, I know about these requirements, but it's still unclear about how they apply to ChatGPT in every scenario. For example, are they supposed to monitor all chats for potentially illegal content and delete such chats immediately? What aspects of AI could be harmful to minors and what is an appropriate way to mitigate these harms?

Or if I've previously told ChatGPT I'm gay, consented to its use of memory across chats, and, after asking about say "What's the best lube for anal?" it later recommends me a lube specifically intended for anal sex that is popular within the gay community, is it making a prohibited product recommendation based on sexual orientation?

One might counter with the argument that these are minor issues, but given the EU's wide latitude in determining the amount of a fine, the requirements should not be open to interpretation.

The EU doesn’t have clear requirements or guidelines about what these things mean, especially in the context of a new technology like ChatGPT.

My guess is that ChatGPT will do their best to comply but whatever they do, the EU will find that they did not do a perfect job and issue a €x billion fine.

Claude always seems unreliably lately. Output and reasoning have become very inconsistent even on good days. I'm actually feeling more productive now that it's down.

The justification for the fine is very arbitrary. The EU did not seem to evaluate the number of listings that Aliexpress blocked or removed promptly, the percentage of counterfeit listings versus total listings, or whether each listing in question was indeed for a counterfeit. I really wonder how many of the listings were duplicates or had no sales. I rarely see counterfeits on Aliexpress these days.

Note that the press release focuses on the number of Aliexpress users as an apparent reason for the investigation but there are is nothing quantifying the harm.

This is highly problematic and reeks of protectionism. The EU is basically saying, “We don’t care how much you brushed your teeth or how healthy they are, it looks like you still missed a few spots.”

I don’t see how a foreign company can ever win once the EU decides it doesn’t like you.

Such a restriction isn’t patently unreasonable but it would make it more difficult for foreign journalists to do research, and it would add the hassle of requiring individuals to show proof of residence when submitting a request. Anonymous requests under pseudonyms would become impossible.

For what it’s worth, only a handful of US states have a residency requirement for FOIA requests.

The €3 customs charge, which is on top of VAT, represents both favoritism toward EU commercial sellers (the tax only impacts individual consumers) and protectionism at its finest. This new surcharge taxes people for buying direct and not shopping at traditional EU stores.

As much as the EU is credited for being pro-consumer, they really care more about the establishment.

Insurers rely on reinsurance (insurance against their insurance) for precisely this reason. And if a disaster bad enough to take out a major insurer happens, it wouldn’t surprise me if the government stepped in.

I just tried Qwant out of curiousity and immediately got a headache from the bright blue-purple color. Its UI isn't as readable as Google and I would find it annoying to use frequently.

Also, shouldn't EU Parliament web browsers follow the same standards as the EU requires of Google-- i.e. users are prompted to choose a search engine after installation?

The top-level discussed a theoretical risk of data being exfiltrated by third parties for training. Other comments discussed contract law and legal remedies, including Delaware’s excellent court system for handling business disputes.

None of this means you don’t have the same rights as an individual to enforce contract terms. I think the top commenters discussed corporate law because that is where most IP theft occurs, and corporate customers have strong contracts covering data protection.

Not every EU country has a high tax burden. Rates are generally much fairer in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.

So I wouldn’t say high taxes are fundamentally European.

I see the challenge here is that the plaintiff surmised there was a faulty “algorithm,” but didn’t have proof until the government published its audit report nearly a year later. I wonder if the claim would have succeeded if she instead simply alleged that the government was improperly allocating school spots on a widespread basis without claiming there was an algorithm.

I don’t think The Guardian’s headline is accurate because the algorithm didn’t win, rather the parent involved didn’t have her day in court at all. Regardless, this is another example of the everyday issues people face (and will continue to face) when governments use technology improperly.