The core idea is local-first compliance: – risk classification (Articles 5–15, incl. prohibited use cases) – bias evaluation using CrowS-Pairs – automatic Annex IV–oriented PDF reports – no cloud services or external APIs (browser-based + Ollama)
I’m especially interested in feedback on whether this kind of technical framing of AI regulation makes sense in real-world projects.
Given the timeline of the commits and some other tells (e.g. using forwardRef despite using React 19 which deprecates it), it seems like you used coding assistants extensively. That's a personal preference, but I would mention that explicitly (if that's the case), if only for intellectual honesty.
You’re right that the commit history doesn’t fully reflect the raw development process. I did some cleanup and squashing before publishing, since this is an open-source project and I wanted the history to be readable and reviewable.
I do use coding assistants as part of my workflow, mostly for iteration speed and boilerplate, but the architectural decisions, evaluation logic, and compliance mapping are intentional and manually reasoned through.
Happy to clarify any part of the implementation or assumptions if something looks odd.
If something gets built with AI or not at all, that’s a net positive as far as I’m concerned.
Also just from the data that has been shared with me chargebacks/complaints/nitpicking/stinginess alone from this region seems to demoralizing compared to Americans/East Asia
We have this idealized view of a rich affluent "Europe" born from Marshall Plan but that certainly is not the actual reality today.
These are not "anti-business regulations".
Regulation is made to protect customers. Consumer trust is favorable to business in the long run.
It's really sad that US technologists confuse business and grift these days. Maybe it's related to their main customers being VCs, and the people using service just being props needed to have the line go up.
Rules and regulations always assume it would be used by a rational actor, but should be written such that someone irrational would not be able to misuse it. That is teh premise of 1984. But you do you .
You change your behavior or belief system to match a group's standard/norm (conform).
Conform and follow/adhere are quite different, and convey the thought process underneath.
If it was a voluntary standard or code, maybe you could conform. The thread talks about the ACT and COMPLIANCE in its heading. You follow the regulation, you comply with it, you don't conform to a mandatory set of rules anyway. If you do, that is literally orwellian (because it implies a mandatory legal obidience is same as a voluntary fitting in).
The Official EU AI Act Compliance Regulation Conformance Tool MMXXVI v1.0
If you are one patch version behind, you are "non-complaint" and you will get fined immediately.
We <3 EU!
Signed, an American who is fed up with adslop and saasslop propaganda. Do not reward immoral megacorps.
Not knocking Europe, but there's too much of a tendency online to picture Europe as some kind of Disneyland. Some of this is down to Americans who only know Europe from two-week holidays and picture it as a holiday utopia, some of it is Europeans who only know America from reality television and picture it as a hellscape.
Pop discourse != reality.
And those are?
> Many things you take for granted - don't even think about - either don't work at all, or don't work well.
And those are?
degrowth decels are a scourge
To name a few.
The point is how we use technology.
Without going to WW2 technology extremes, think about AI systems generating pictures of naked people from a regular picture. Regardless of the fact that this was already more or less possible using Photoshop or other tools (as I said before, technology is not always about new things, maybe it's about faster workflows), is there a clear net benefit to society when comparing pros and cons?
This doesn't mean that you should forbid all kinds of innovation, but if you're running a service (people keep interacting with you, they don't just buy stuff and use that at home) and a data-driven one at that (you know how people use your service because that's part of how you make money), some degree of responsibility should be expected.
If I buy a coconut and I use it to hurt someone, the original seller doesn't know it, but if I keep renting cars to hide bodies and the rental company has cameras inside the car as part of their business model, at some point the company could say "hey, what about this guy? What should we do about him?". And if for some reason it turns out that most customers rent cars for that reason, I would hope at some point someone would think "hey, how did we get to this situation? What should we do?".
dmitrygr•4w ago
petcat•4w ago
hiepler•4w ago
The name is meant literally as “EU conformity” (EU + conform), not “you conform”.
I was aiming for something that signals regulatory alignment without sounding legal-heavy, but I get how it can read differently.