> Where YOU live you can have all the unbridled capitalism as you want

A bit rich when all the companies mentioned are across the pond?

Sure. However, this was _never_ about money and _always_ about good honest work.

If it weren't for the cookie banners (I blame the EU, but I'm open to corrections), I'd agree with you.

Uh... you know that there are offline models that are already downloadable?

LLM regulation is too late, models are already at chatGPT3.5 or 4 levels, which is enough to do basically anything.

You are confusing intent for ground reality. Its like saying 'we banned drugs' but we still have a drug problem.

Don't be surprised when all the innovation happens in the US or China and EU will be left behind like always.

I'm guessing that due to regulations, the only AIs you'll be allowed to use in the EU will be the EU developed ones that fulfill the requirements, so there's a captive market right there for local companies.

Granted, they'll probably end up performing worse than US or Chinese ones operating without restrictions and being uncompetitive on the global free market, but when did EU leaders ever think about long term consequences? Certainly not when they tied their economy to Russian gas and banned nuclear, certainly not when they prioritized toxic diesel engines over gasoline, certainly not when they demilitarized or when they ceded tech innovation to US and China, but for once this will be the right call, I can feel it, this will bring EU to the forefront of tech supremacy.

Because an AI model developed in the EU will, by design, be compliant with EU data and AI regulations from day one, which makes it a strong selling point for companies looking to launch AI-powered products on the EU market?

Yes, regulatory compliance is a significant concern for software product design in the EU these days. But that's a good thing - it stops a lot of hare-brained ideas and abusive business models at the drafting phase. Also, from my own observation, the rules seem annoying at first, because they tend to shut down the most exciting ideas - but after a while you notice that this is because those ideas come with bad failure modes and bad second-order effects, and regulations are forcing you to actually consider them.

A factor that goes into that decision is the now inherent unreliability of relying on entities in the US as a partner. For some situations it's safer to do it in the EU despite the regulations.

> Why would anyone develop AI models in the EU?

Not just AI models. The EU only leads in regulations and nothing else and it shows: since 2008 both China and the US have experienced insane GDP growth while the EU has been totally stagnant (inflation adjusted).

I don't think people realize at which speed the EU is falling into oblivion. It's really horrible to witness from inside the EU. Cities are poorer and poorer, high-trust societies are becoming low-trust ones due to rising (imported) poverty and crimes. Cities that used to be beautiful cities now see weekly kidnapping (Paris) and AK47s are fired in Brussels on a weekly basis.

But we should all applaud because AI is going to be regulated and because we're going to be green. Go EU, yay!

Meanwhile people in the EU don't even want to have kids anymore: I honestly have got a hard time figuring out why young people in the EU would even want kids seen the overall atmosphere reigning here now.

So while India, Brazil, China, the US, and many other countries are still going to see growth, I fully expect the EU to keep shooting itself in the foot (like it did with its car industry, destroying it with regulations and handing over the EU EV car market to China).

Those who can do do, losers who cannot do regulate.

The fact of the matter is that of the voters who care about AI, the most vocal ones vehemently oppose it. Sabotaging AI development is a feature, not a bug. This regulation might well be an attempt at appeasing the faction that wants to ban LLMs in the EU entirely.

What is a failure?

The AI Act classifies systems depending on their capabilities and their intended use, and the risk that they pose on the people using or being exposed to them. If a tool ends up being classified as a high-risk AI system or as a model with systemic risk there are strict requirements in terms of reporting incidents. For certain types of incidents it is as little as two days, for others upwards of 15 days.

Yes, this use of 'ask' is statist propaganda.

You ban open weight models and the problem is solved

Users of the model could be legally required to take part in the tracking.

Just the same? If you publish a model that doesn't follow these rules nobody in the EU could use that model in their business. You could publish unlicensed source code as well and nobody could really use it for anything business related either.

Why would it be the creators’ responsibility? It should be the one running the model.

The service provider (or whoever was _running_ the thing) would be liable, I'd assume, not the model creator.

If strategy of foreigners is to make money from citizens of EU then strategy of EU should logically be to make money out of foreigners.

We are fine not having neoliberal capitalism, plus we can follow the example of other countries and erect the big European wall, for that matter.

How dare the EU prioritize the rights of its citizens over the rights of evil foreign megacorporations!