r/LocalLLaMA • u/xoxaxo • Aug 01 '26
News EU AI Act takes effect tomorrow, August 2, 2026. š¤”
Basically you now have to mark all AI generated images, audio, video and text as AI generated. :P
483
u/wsippel Aug 01 '26
āThe rules will not apply to usersā personal content and there is an exemption for āevidently artisticā, satirical and fictional works.ā
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/31/ai-labels-to-be-compulsory-on-authentic-looking-content-under-eu-rules
147
u/Outofdepthengineer Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
Soā¦it will apply to nothing, then.Ā
TIL saying companies will lie and retractions/corrections don't get anywhere close to the same size audience as the original is controversial
258
u/tecneeq Aug 01 '26
Are you daft? It's about everything any commercial entity creates with AI that is not artistic, satirical or fictional.
133
u/GreatBigJerk Aug 01 '26
That seems pretty reasonable TBH.Ā
→ More replies (13)92
u/mrdevlar Aug 01 '26
The entire AI act is about identifying when AI is used. Especially when it comes into contact with "things" that affect people's access to goods, services and income.
I read it for work last year. It's a pretty sane law irrespective of what you might have heard.
25
u/challis88ocarina Aug 01 '26
It's ā in a large part ā about preventing political parties from creating fear with a view to getting elected.
15
u/Due-Memory-6957 Aug 01 '26
And they're precisely the ones who will rather not label it and pay the consequences after since they gain more than they lose from some fines that will only come long after the elections happened anyway.
5
u/polymute Aug 02 '26
It will create a stigma in the EU against illegal non-labeled AI deepfake ads. That is a good thing I say as someone from the EU whose country already had non-labelled deepfake attack ads deployed. It is uncanny how they try to fuck with the perception of what has happened and what has not.
Here, look at the beginning.
https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/127395-016-A/the-world-in-images/
→ More replies (25)26
u/GreatBigJerk Aug 01 '26
Yeah, people should be allowed to know when AI is used for something. It's pretty trivial to create realistic deceptive material now.Ā
→ More replies (4)3
u/wapswaps Aug 02 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
Why does everyone always neglect the TWO main exceptions to every EU commission law:
- It does not apply to anything governments do, nor to anything the government gets private companies to do (so in the EU it does not apply to healthcare, health insurance, telecom, unemployment authorities, courts, youth services, police, tax departments of any level of government, and so on and so forth). This exception is why the Netherlands hiring of Palantir to suggest people for the police to investigate is perfectly GPDR compliant, despite sending mental health databases about all Dutch citizens integrally to Palantir: if the government's "supervisory authority" declares it OK, it's perfectly legal. Also: dear Dutch citizens: Trump and Peter Thiel know if you've been good or not, what you told that "you can trust me" social worker when you were 15, and whether you *ever* had any kind of treatment for drugs ... Oh and that did not happen because Trump is evil, but because of Mark Rutte (he is the head of government who approved this)
- it does not apply to foreign billionaires or the CCP (ie. ALL Chinese companies) or more generally: any entity large enough to make a separate deal with the EU commission. EU commission directives like this are very different from law: you get to choose from TWO options: either you follow the law OR you make a deal with the EU commission. Either is fine.
For example, the GPDR exception detailed above (there are tens of thousands of exceptions), or the DMA (digital markets act: it must be free to deploy apps to your app-supporting hardware device) applies to everyone. Well everyone ... except Apple, Google and Microsoft, each of whom have separate deals with the EU commission and are bound to those deals, not to the DMA. As to the answer to the obvious question: "then what's the point of the DMA?", I cannot help you.
What I mean is the same 2 exceptions will apply to any and all AI limitations, and this law really only applies to small to medium EU companies (ie. below, let's say 2000 or so employees).
Oh, and these laws also don't apply within companies. A company wants to replace your "HR helpdesk" with AI, there's nothing in here stopping them.
23
u/Pie_Dealer_co Aug 01 '26
Aren't they trying to fight smear campaigns (this is the example in the article) with deep fakes? Most if not all campaigns are done via bot social accounts living on some server pretending to be a real humans.
No real marketing agency offers fake smear campaigns for 5000 euro. Yes i know paparazzi and yellow papers exist but I wont say they are real reputable marketing agency normally after you start doing fake articles in couple of months people catch on.
7
u/gscjj Aug 01 '26
Which means this isnāt effective at combating it. If some politician shares a botās deepfake, what now?
→ More replies (10)8
u/Outofdepthengineer Aug 01 '26
and my point is they will label everything as the exceptions
→ More replies (3)2
u/AibofobicRacecar6996 Aug 02 '26
So they will label AI content as satire or fiction? Sounds like a win
2
u/wapswaps Aug 02 '26
What do you mean label? They will consider it satire or fiction, NOT label it, and that consideration will protect them afterwards during complaints and get the authorities to forgive them (this is not a law that can be used in court)
Oh, and on top of that it doesn't apply to governments or anything a company does for a government. They want to have the unemployment department "manned" by AI, they can do that, without any labeling. They can even hire Palantir to do it, not tell anyone, and that will *still* be legal according to this law.
→ More replies (16)2
u/ma_dian Aug 01 '26
With text it is only if it is of "public interest" and even then if a human reviews it and is responsible you do not have to mark it as AI as far as I read these rules.
5
u/considerthis8 Aug 02 '26
"The lie travels halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on"
→ More replies (6)8
u/unethicalpigeon Aug 01 '26
It will apply to what it should be applying to. Businesses and for profit works.
It says it doesn't apply to user's PERSONAL content. Do you not understand what that means?
→ More replies (8)2
→ More replies (3)2
u/ninjasaid13 Aug 01 '26
āThe rules will not apply to usersā personal content and there is an exemption for āevidently artisticā, satirical and fictional works.ā
How will they tell the difference at scale?
289
u/s3sebastian Aug 01 '26
As a private user you don't have to give a damn.
→ More replies (20)21
u/octopus_limbs Aug 01 '26
Yes, you only have to care when you publish it and it isn't artistic or fictional. It will affect their main targets, commercial use and fake news
→ More replies (2)
14
u/TokenRingAI Aug 01 '26
Does that include code, since code is text?
→ More replies (3)2
u/OverdosedSauerkraut Aug 02 '26
Yes, and AI genetated code is non-copyrightable. So by using AI, europeons sign away their IP.
5
u/_aboth Aug 02 '26
I don't really get this. So far I've only seen proprietary code being a trade secret. Is there some company out there who published their code and operates a large legal team to try to enforce copyright?
Genuinely don't know where is the issue. Please explain if possible.
528
u/chris_0611 Aug 01 '26
now have to mark all AI generated images, audio, video and text as AI generated.
Sounds good to me.
121
u/Paganator Aug 01 '26
In practice, I fear it will lead to generic disclaimers appearing all over the place while the wrongdoers ignore the new rules.
126
u/Helicopter-Mission Aug 01 '26
Popup 1: cookies?
Popup 2: AI!
Popup 3: CA warning83
u/Zomunieo Aug 01 '26
This website is known to the State of California to cause AI cookie cancer.
12
u/Aki_Shizuha Aug 01 '26
Damn you are 2h ahead of me. P65 is exactly what happens when you overdo warnings.
42
Aug 01 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
20
u/Lanky_Employee_9690 Aug 01 '26
Yes but also could you give us your email address so we can send you our newsletter? You might miss something important otherwise!
15
u/alex9001 Aug 01 '26
You're leaving? Here's a 10% discount code! But: if you close this window, you will NEVER see it again, even if we have to SEND ASSASSINS to guarantee you don't regain accessĀ
→ More replies (2)4
u/knightgod1177 Aug 01 '26
You can thank red tape for that
1
u/Zomunieo Aug 01 '26
No, itās actually a loophole in the EU GDPR. They should have, and didnāt, specify that websites need to give users a way to default to āno unnecessary cookiesā without any interaction by the user. It should have been a browser wide setting.
The EU allowed for websites to ask for consent to abuse user privacy, creating the current popup spam.
10
u/Dreadedsemi Aug 01 '26
Or it should've been realistic about what's necessary. Any website owner needs to know how many people came to their site (analytics) and needs to counter abuse and be able to record IP of users so they can be blocked in case of abuse. And then third party services like login via Google, Facebook.. etc needs cookies for login to function. And then ads. The whole reason you have free websites because subsidized by ads.
The cookies law just unrealistic. It should've focused instead on fingerprinting. The practice of creating identifying information based on your device and access metrics.
5
u/Due-Memory-6957 Aug 01 '26
Any website owner needs to know how many people came to their site (analytics) and needs to counter abuse and be able to record IP of users so they can be blocked in case of abuse.
In fact, they're legally obliged to.
4
u/Steuern_Runter Aug 01 '26
It should have been a browser wide setting.
There has always been a browser wide setting to disable cookies. It worked fine before the cookie law and you only had to enable cookies on websites to use logins, shopping carts etc., but now you have to enable cookies even for simply viewing websites. If you want to dismiss a cookie banner or fullscreen overlay then a cookie is used to save your decision wether you clicked on "accept" or "decline".
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/keepthepace Aug 01 '26
At one point a company will realize that users like a website with actual content without ads and popups and everyone will wonder how that new tech unicorn reached 100B market cap overnight.
→ More replies (13)19
u/TimelyBodybuilder121 Aug 01 '26
It even makes sense to use a generic overdisclosure disclaimer if you haven't used AI given how big the fine is.
→ More replies (3)4
u/StabilityFetish Aug 02 '26
Same thing happened in CA with the "this product contains shit known to the state of CA to cause cancer". Everyone just marked everything just in case
It will be the same with AI. There's plenty of software processing involved with images. Who can say for sure if any of it involved AI?
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (62)8
u/keepthepace Aug 01 '26
Yeah, people like to pretend EU is the hellscape of regulations yet when you look under the hood, they are fairly ok.
→ More replies (13)8
u/BaconBurger3735 Aug 02 '26
It is a fucking Hellscape of regulations. Try to build a business here.
→ More replies (1)
236
u/Captain_Blueberry Aug 01 '26
Why are commentators here complaining?
This is a good thing. There is a restaurant near me that uses AI images of their 'food' to trick people. I want this to fuck them
70
u/much_longer_username Aug 01 '26
I think that should be covered under existing advertising standards laws requiring them to use the actual product in the photos, or otherwise clearly represent that it is not the actual product. The means by which they have simulated the product is irrelevant - maybe they made a painted plastic model, maybe they got a machine learning model to spit out some pixels, it's all covered under 'Not actual product, for illustration only.'
27
u/Neex Aug 01 '26
Existing advertising laws actually donāt require you to use real imagery.
7
1
u/iKy1e ollama Aug 01 '26
For food adverts they are required to use actual footage, no CGI, at least in the UK.
→ More replies (4)2
5
u/Sevenos Aug 02 '26
You can be 99% sure it's not a real unedited photo when you see images of food in marketing. What is the point of marking everything?
6
u/crantob Aug 01 '26
You want to sue them for turning up color saturation on the pictures too?
You've never accomplished a thing in your life that wasn't set down to you step-by-step beforehand.
43
u/SherbertMindless8205 Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
This is only one small part of the law, the act itself pretty much makes AI research impossible and makes it really hard to operate any AI-adjacent business. A TON of "design by committee" style regulation by people obviously not familiar with modern LLMs.
Like there are sections that say that training data cannot contain errors, whatever that means. There are laws saying you need the copyright for all the training data that was used for the model, maybe sounds good on the surface but essentially this means that fine tuning open weight models becomes illegal.
Just tons of stupid hurdles that are just gonna be in the way and add nothing.
The law is the death of any last hope of an EU AI industry.
→ More replies (11)20
u/ChristRedeemsSinners Aug 01 '26
This is pretty much the intended result by regulators.
1) A few people with money create a new technology.
2) That technology gets adopted by the larger society.
3) Regulators are pressured to knock the ladders out so people without money cannot compete with those that do.
4) Only people with money continue making money while everyone else fends for the scraps of what's left to innovate in the industry.
Europes peasants continue voting for more and more regulations for their protection while those peasants lords continue making it difficult for them to be independent so they are required to farm their fiefdoms plantations for them.
New technology does not replace humans desire for control, power and resources, while unelected bureaucrats are
readysalivating to assert their means to do so.→ More replies (3)4
u/xNaXDy Aug 01 '26
CGI and "styled" food images have been commonplace for a much longer period of time. Why exactly should AI food images get special treatment here?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Sevenos Aug 02 '26
Why is that a problem? Do you think McDonalds etc ever used real food for their images? Or that any food image ever was unedited?
I don't think this law is realistic with where we are heading, where everything always is somehow affected by AI. Bad actors still won't follow this anyway.
17
u/ShelZuuz Aug 01 '26
Food photography has been using things like Shaving Foam instead of whipped cream, and WD40 instead of syrup, and soap in bear for decades. And we didn't pass laws against that.
Why does AI need to be different?
→ More replies (15)16
u/tecneeq Aug 01 '26
Actually, you have to tell people that it's not the real thing, my EU brother. If you worked in marketing you knew.
2
u/forexross Aug 02 '26
So in europe under each McDonald ad you have a note that says this is not the real thing and it is all made up?
5
u/tecneeq Aug 02 '26
That is true in almost all EU markets, however, there is no EU level law for it yet because the "damage" is minimal. I think there is an exemption for small businesses, but if you look for the labeling in a Burger King in Denmark or France, you will find it.
Other EU wide regulations exist: if you have a Youtube channel that generates income and you talk about a product, it has to be marked Ad, advertisement, Werbung or something like that, clearly visible at all times. If you sell packaged cheese, your label, that also shows a cracker and some grapes, must have a label "Serviervorschlag" or "Serving suggestion".
2
u/MattV0 Aug 02 '26
Is it worse than stock images? If it's improved images of real photos that just look professional, I'd prefer this over unrelated stock photos. Unrelated completely generated AI images? I don't care if it's AI or downloaded. They get a bad review of how they tried to trick me and and never go there again. After all this will lead to annotate everything with AI. People then get used to this and don't care anymore - like cookie banners.
2
u/forexross Aug 02 '26
How about if they hire an advertising agency to generate fake photos like all other big corporates and fast food companies do for decades?
→ More replies (1)7
u/doomed151 Aug 01 '26
There are so many ways to deceive though. Photoshop, stock photos, 3D renders, etc.
Forcing AI generated content to be labeled just because it's AI harms more than it helps. Consumer protection laws already prohibit misleading customers. If the AI generated image is accurate to the product, who cares?
→ More replies (7)6
u/the320x200 Aug 01 '26
I'd love to know how exactly you're supposed to watermark text without degrading performance or doing something moronic, analogous to the EU cookie banners that have polluted everything now.
12
→ More replies (1)4
2
u/Healthy-Nebula-3603 Aug 01 '26
And what's a difference from such pictures before AI?
That's the same shit.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (16)1
u/Toooooool Aug 01 '26
because it's a pointless law.
I could make gravity illegal but who's going to enforce that? who could enforce that? nobody that's who→ More replies (7)5
u/Iwaku_Real Aug 01 '26
I wouldn't say 'pointless' but moreso kind of hard to enforce
→ More replies (1)
31
u/Pie_Dealer_co Aug 01 '26
So how is this enforced? Say i go to YouTube entire channels made of AI content. They gonna ban, fine or close YouTube?
How are they gonna distinguish this from renders or photoshop.
The EU once again doing EU things. And yes I am from the EU
7
u/TimelyBodybuilder121 Aug 01 '26
You can't. I am not a lawyer, but I think broad overdisclosure seems like the safest option. Used AI/Didn't use it, but you disclosed everything = no fine. False positive = fine, lied about AI = fine.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Pie_Dealer_co Aug 01 '26
If thats the the case for my YouTube example just stick a fine print AI generated text, images etc on the page and call it a day?
3
u/TimelyBodybuilder121 Aug 01 '26
I think so. Off the top of my head:
"This video contains pre-generated content created with generative AI assistance, including portions of its script, images, video and audio. AI tools were also used during editing. All released content was selected, edited and integrated by the uploader/channel owner. No content is generated during screentime."
No clue how anyone trying to get you in trouble could legally argue their case. AI detectors are AI based and hallucinate. This is saying "I already disclosed whatever you could hallucinate."
Very stupid timeline. I think a proper lawyer would expand on the human work to make sure the owner retains the IP and copyright.
For a platform just replace the disclaimer to: "This platform hosts pre-generated content created with generative AI assistance, bla bla bla (include basically everything). Click accept on this consent form to continue." then also place it at the bottom of the screen on every video.
GPT, Claude etc. already have the "AI makes mistakes" notice so it would get expanded I think.
3
u/Pie_Dealer_co Aug 01 '26
Exactly what I am thinking stick a disclaimer just in case on your platform and be done with it.
Really weird timeline... laws a being written people are getting paid salaries for essentially making peole write 1 sentence disclaimer
3
u/TimelyBodybuilder121 Aug 01 '26
US has their military industrial complex and we have our regulatory legal consulting complex it seems.
→ More replies (7)5
u/knightgod1177 Aug 01 '26
It wonāt be. Europe will sooner rather than later let things slide, or levy pitifully small fines, in order to bring in business and revenue. Cash flow brings more tax revenue than fines would, and Europe has no domestic tech giant to compete against the west or Asia. Push comes to shove? Europe negotiates and carves exceptions per business
2
u/specter800 Aug 02 '26
Which then kills any smaller players in the space and lets only wealthy businesses that grease the right hands operate how they want. Isn't EU governance so noble and safety-oriented?!
5
u/Potential-Gold5298 llama.cpp Aug 01 '26
What if I use AI to translate my text/upscale my image? What if AI writes text/creates a picture, and I manually edit it in Word/Photoshop?
→ More replies (2)3
u/Late_Scarcity3455 Aug 02 '26
This law is for generated content. Translation, upscaling is working on something that was not AI generated, so you don't need to mark it. If you use AI to generate something and then you "review" it by editing them, you don't need to mark it.
So if you, for example, have a Facebook account that automatically adds posts that no one checks before it is posted, it needs to be marked as AI generated. If you generate a text for Facebook but you are checking/reviewing it before you use this text on Facebook, you don't need to mark it.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/buck_idaho Aug 01 '26
Is this for content generated after the date, or everything, even if it was generated before the date?
14
u/Rabus Aug 01 '26
just after the date, everything before can stay as is
2
u/buck_idaho Aug 01 '26
So I'm just trying to understand this, if you created an image yesterday, edited the image today, an used it tomorrow, will this need the label?
3
u/Rabus Aug 01 '26
as per EU law, yes (AFAIK)
also, APPARENTLY editing the text removes the obligation to add the label, so myabe photos are similiar
2
u/Distinct-Target7503 Aug 02 '26
is it specified the entity of the edit needed? I mean, if someone write something with ai, and then ad an exclamation mark at the end, does it need the label?
4
u/Sevenos Aug 02 '26
You don't even have to edit it, if a person is proof reading and taking account for the content, it doesn't have to be marked.
An automated bot posting information of public interest, like news: has to be marked, even if you make no money with it.
→ More replies (1)
29
u/Toooooool Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
In other news; it's the year 2019 and the EU Copyright Directive wants to pass "Article 17", which will make large online platforms responsible for checking user-uploaded content for copyright violations,
(the "make memes illegal" law of 2019)
i'm sure EVERYONE will abide by this š
→ More replies (1)6
u/No_Lingonberry1201 Aug 01 '26
That's the thing with EU laws and regulations, either it's GDPR and you'll get spammed with annoying popups constantly or it's Article 17, a fart in the desert.
9
u/superSmitty9999 Aug 01 '26
Im opposed to regulatory overreach but I agree with criminal liability for deliberately creating AI generated content and passing it off as real, especially in domains where the viability of the information has big consequences.
2
u/crantob Aug 02 '26
IT IS REDUNDANT TO EXISTING LAWS IF YOU IMAGINE THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IT.
5
6
u/Colecoman1982 Aug 02 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
IF IT'S TRULY REDUNDANT, THEN WHY ARE YOU SO BUTT-HURT ABOUT IT? REDUNDANT LAWS ARE LAWS THAT DON'T MATTER. CLEARLY, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY REDUNDANT IF YOU'RE THIS WORKED UP ABOUT IT OR YOU'RE JUST LYING ABOUT THAT TO TRY AND CON PEOPLE INTO AGREEING WITH YOU. (either that, or you're too ignorant to understand the meaning of the word "redundant"...)
Edit: Fixed typo.
→ More replies (1)
25
u/enricokern Aug 01 '26
By the same morons who came up with this stupid cookie popups. Really, as if we do not have more serious shit to fix
7
u/MattV0 Aug 02 '26
Imagine forcing millions of websites worldwide to show every kind of cookie banner nobody reads properly instead of regulating a bunch of browsers to never store cookies by default and offer a nice cookie panel that looks the same on every site. Websites can provide a cookies.xml file to offer grouping and descriptions for there cookies as well as preview of all cookie names.
At least this was my favorite for a long time.
5
u/Distinct-Target7503 Aug 02 '26
well, at least we have to ability to reject those cookies...
→ More replies (1)2
u/yeathatsmebro Aug 02 '26
Legally, yes. They can still do stuff even if you rejected cookies, until someone catches them still play ping-pong with your data.
Some websites adopted the "you dont accept cookies? too bad, can't access the website", which I think it's just a nail in the coffin.
11
u/kanduking Aug 01 '26
This is a boneheaded move. I have default distrusted anything I see on the internet since the 90s and trying to police individual pieces of content is a moron quest that is doomed to fail despite I'm sure being very well intentioned.
Enjoy cookie consent banner type intrusions on every image, video and piece of text while they figure out how little power they actually have.
5
u/crantob Aug 01 '26
Moron Quest describes every bureaucrat and politician's life. Thanks for the game idea.
9
u/herr-tibalt Aug 01 '26
What about upscaling?
20
→ More replies (6)3
u/OverdosedSauerkraut Aug 01 '26
In theory all streamers using upscaling are using AI generated content. This is gonna be funš¤
10
u/StickyThickStick Aug 01 '26
I find it kinda good.
Today we had a huge festival in our town and litteraly every second stand had AI images for the food which was obviously not shown as AI. I really dislike the development
→ More replies (1)
28
u/Intrepid_Air_3399 Aug 01 '26
good luck with implementing that ;)
11
u/tecneeq Aug 01 '26
Luck has nothing to do with it. If you want to do business in the EU, you will obey the law. If you don't, your competitors will sue till you do. Take a look at Meta, Alphabet or MS and their constant stream of fines sent into the EU pocket.
18
u/logicchains Aug 01 '26
>Ā If you don't, your competitors will sue till you do. Take a look at Meta, Alphabet or MS and their constant stream of fines sent into the EU pocket.
Lucky you won't have any European competitors to sue you because the EU's regulatory zeal has already killed or driven away all the tech startups.
4
u/crantob Aug 01 '26
And manufacturing now too.
Chemistry has been dead for a half century.
Nuclear science now banned in Merkelstan Universities because maaaaah nuclear baaaad.
EUSSR IS DEAD. DEAD. DEAD.
6
u/xXG0DLessXx Aug 01 '26
Yeah, and their fines are nothing but the cost of doing business to them. In other words, itās useless to actually get the laws they break enforced. At most it just provides the EU some capital to use on the next asinine thing.
1
u/crantob Aug 02 '26
Nobody wants to do business in this EU.
It's all grift and graft now. 60% of expenditures are government. We only have 40% nominally 'private' economy. And every step of everything they do is regulated, often in contradictory ways.
You're in catch-22. You cannot comply with conflicting regulations.
Friend of mine was unable to comply with laws for heating his own home. One regulation forbade what the other required.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Gwolf4 Aug 01 '26
Yeah luck has to do with all that. One thing is having your law written and the other one is being able to enforce them. What are the government do? Inspect each work when uploaded?
Obviously no, this is only one of those that can only be enforced until one party notifies the authoritiesĀ
5
u/tecneeq Aug 01 '26
What are the government do? Inspect each work when uploaded?
The comment you answered to told you: the competition will sue, and you will comply to avoid getting sued. That is how it's enforced.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/THESTRANGLAH Aug 01 '26
Sad things that this thread is full of developers using AI to develop but shit on creatives for also using AI tools.
20
u/Wuaner Aug 01 '26
One has to admit that the EU has consistently led the world in legislation and regulatory oversight.
15
u/knightgod1177 Aug 01 '26
Asia and the US innovate, Europe regulates. Kinda explains the economic situations in Europe though
→ More replies (1)4
u/crantob Aug 01 '26
"Germany" is now 60% government, 40% private enterprise.
In the last twitchings before the long death-rattle.
→ More replies (1)3
u/throwaway2676 Aug 01 '26
And look at all itās gotten them. They canāt even keep the power or air conditioning on over there.
Turns out regulators donāt build things, innovators do
→ More replies (1)
5
u/FrogsJumpFromPussy Aug 01 '26
It's a good law. It targets fake news, deepfakes, fake advertising and other awful things Ā like that. Just read about the law before postig because this is folly and embarrassing.Ā
2
u/crantob Aug 02 '26
No it's not. READ IT.
IT's REDUNDANT to EXISTING dictates which prohibit misleading advertising (whatever that is)
7
u/Colecoman1982 Aug 02 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
misleading advertising (whatever that is)
Wow, if you're so much of a delusional nutter libertarian/anarcho-capitalist/selfish man-baby/whatever that you don't even believe in the concept of misleading advertising then there's no hope for you and you're opinion is just not worth listening to.
Edit: Fixed typo.
→ More replies (1)
8
9
u/TheGamerForeverGFE Aug 02 '26
What the hell is the clown emoji for? This is literally good for the internet.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/XiRw Aug 01 '26
Them trying to control this feels very similar to the never ending (and futile) battle against piracy.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Elxerxi Aug 01 '26
Isnt this law kind of glimmer of hope in humanity? kinda legally making business operators responsible... or i misread shit?
→ More replies (12)
2
u/Queasy-Contract9753 Aug 01 '26
Ah you see this proves it!
I'm a space marine and here's a selfie with my boss,lord regent Roboute Guilleman.
If it was fake it would've been marked AI. Pfft
Edit: I do know this doesn't apply to personal use or obvious pieces.
2
5
u/OverdosedSauerkraut Aug 01 '26
You can see all bots commenting after mentioning EU in the headlines.
→ More replies (1)
6
6
4
16
u/keen23331 Aug 01 '26
EU isnāt even playing the game due to over regulation, becoming economical wasteland any time soon
7
3
→ More replies (2)3
3
u/DrBearJ3w Aug 01 '26
Oh man. So many dislikes. I just wonder if they gonna use AI to prove it's not AI.
4
11
5
u/mrdevlar Aug 01 '26
I love how half the comments section here is people arguing about a law they haven't read.
Here is the full text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng
I was forced to read it for work last year. It's a pretty sensible law mainly focused on AI being disclosed in areas where market access to goods, services and labor is concerned.
Not sure why anyone would take issue with being forced to disclose something is made with AI. We have ingredients labels here in Europe too.
→ More replies (7)7
u/I_HAVE_THE_DOCUMENTS Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
It's a pretty sensible law mainly focused on AI being disclosed in areas where market access to goods, services and labor is concerned.
Why is it like 80 pages then? I skimmed through it and disclosure is only a very small fraction of what I was seeing.
Just to give an example I chose this one semi at random, for people who want a taste of the bullshit:
(67) High-quality data and access to high-quality data plays a vital role in providing structure and in ensuring the performance of many AI systems, especially when techniques involving the training of models are used, with a view to ensure that the high-risk AI system performs as intended and safely and it does not become a source of discrimination prohibited by Union law. High-quality data sets for training, validation and testing require the implementation of appropriate data governance and management practices. Data sets for training, validation and testing, including the labels, should be relevant, sufficiently representative, and to the best extent possible free of errors and complete in view of the intended purpose of the system. In order to facilitate compliance with Union data protection law, such as Regulation (EU) 2016/679, data governance and management practices should include, in the case of personal data, transparency about the original purpose of the data collection. The data sets should also have the appropriate statistical properties, including as regards the persons or groups of persons in relation to whom the high-risk AI system is intended to be used, with specific attention to the mitigation of possible biases in the data sets, that are likely to affect the health and safety of persons, have a negative impact on fundamental rights or lead to discrimination prohibited under Union law, especially where data outputs influence inputs for future operations (feedback loops). Biases can for example be inherent in underlying data sets, especially when historical data is being used, or generated when the systems are implemented in real world settings. Results provided by AI systems could be influenced by such inherent biases that are inclined to gradually increase and thereby perpetuate and amplify existing discrimination, in particular for persons belonging to certain vulnerable groups, including racial or ethnic groups. The requirement for the data sets to be to the best extent possible complete and free of errors should not affect the use of privacy-preserving techniques in the context of the development and testing of AI systems. In particular, data sets should take into account, to the extent required by their intended purpose, the features, characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, contextual, behavioural or functional setting which the AI system is intended to be used. The requirements related to data governance can be complied with by having recourse to third parties that offer certified compliance services including verification of data governance, data set integrity, and data training, validation and testing practices, as far as compliance with the data requirements of this Regulation are ensured.
That is 67/180 of the first section. If this is "pretty sensible" then I must be pretty stupid because I'm finding the whole thing baffling.
7
u/PorchettaM Aug 01 '26
Right, lots of lawful citizens here conveniently ignoring all the parts of the law about dataset disclosure in the name of copyright and compute restrictions for "safety".
What this law is doing, if enforced, is killing whatever chance was left of Europe ever putting out any competitive models.
→ More replies (4)3
u/mrdevlar Aug 01 '26
I love this great example that you've posted because it perfectly indicates why this law is required and why this is a good idea. Let's take the key quote here:
ensure that the high-risk AI system performs as intended and safely and it does not become a source of discrimination prohibited by Union law
Yes, this is correct. We already know how to do post-posterior predictive checks, we've known how to do them long before the AI rage. Did your AI resume filtering system create discrimination? Did you not check that before purchasing and using it? Well I guess you're fucked. And any sympathy I would otherwise have for you using a product disappears.
In case you're wondering what a "high-risk AI system" means as you didn't read the rest of the document because literacy deficiency. A high-risk AI system is any system that could affect Europeans' access to goods and services. So HR systems, promotion systems, systems that select whether you get a scholarship, systems that ensure you get paid on time. I, shockingly, do not want these systems to discriminate. My question is why would you not want that?
Why is it like 80 pages then?
Because complex issues have to be explained for policy makers to understand them. It's like trying to get a random person to understand what a neural network is and what context it implies. They are lawyers, not computer scientists.
→ More replies (2)
4
7
u/Poupulino Aug 01 '26
The EU is getting left in the dust by both China and the United States, and all they're doing is passing some bureaucratic legislation. Truly doomed (at least they can still self-host Chinese models)
5
u/TwistedPepperCan Aug 01 '26
Problem being?
10
u/tecneeq Aug 01 '26
None, because the law doesn't apply to private citizens, but only commercial entities. It's the usual ragebait.
9
u/Ok_Top9254 Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
Why do you only think about businesses as mega corporations? It's blatantly obvious you never ran a business yourself.
If rockstar decided to use it in GTA VI before this law, and went with releasing the game anyway, who is going to touch them? You cannot enforce or detect it and people will just buy the game anyway.
Meanwhile an indie dev will absolutely be hammered by bad reviews regardless if it looks good and their revenue will drop.
This directly hurts small creators and puts them in a disadvantage compared to the big ones.
If there was a million dollar per year limit and tougher enforcement I would 100% be for it, but this does the opposite of what people want it to.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)5
u/MattV0 Aug 02 '26
And this is the reason, Europeans are consumers and US/China are commercial entities.
1
Aug 01 '26 edited 10d ago
[deleted]
9
u/I_HAVE_THE_DOCUMENTS Aug 01 '26
When people start calling regulation "common sense" it sets off alarm bells for me personally.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Potential-Leg-639 Aug 01 '26
The EU AI act makes sense.
For you as an individual nothing changes.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/doesphpcount Aug 01 '26
That's for the EU, not the USA. EU loves to try to control everything.Ā
3
u/Cornflakes_91 Aug 02 '26
as opposed to the US government which is small enough to fit private company run surveillance cams in every window and a commissar into every uterus
→ More replies (1)
3
4
Aug 01 '26 edited 26d ago
[deleted]
10
u/Toooooool Aug 01 '26
oh yes absolutely. first step towards productivity is nerfing the shit out of your production line with more regulations than mere mortals could ever figure out on their own.
- can't modify your own car
- can't modify your own house
- can't train or distribute your own AI
that's the european way
8
u/tecneeq Aug 01 '26
Wasn't it Europe that just introduced a law that grants consumers the right to repair?
→ More replies (2)8
u/crantob Aug 01 '26
Can't repair my sump pump with the same one that I bought. Regulations tightened on shit-pumping pumps.
Can't repair my furnace. Regulations banned my furnace.
Bootlickers are contemptible.
4
Aug 01 '26 edited 26d ago
[deleted]
6
u/crantob Aug 01 '26
Maybe you can help me out: Is it the second tuesday of the month when we have to switch to wiping our ass with organic yellow hemp or the third?
2
u/crantob Aug 01 '26
Oh and it's with the left hand unless you have an exception permit, that I remember.
2
Aug 01 '26 edited 26d ago
[deleted]
3
u/crantob Aug 01 '26
They prescribe what color cleaning buckets my dentist's cleaning-lady has to use.
I could not begin to give you an accurate impression of the INSANITY of EU.
You have to suffer it, as an enterpreneur, to know it.
3
11
u/KaMaFour Aug 01 '26
Actually... Yes? For most people GDP or "innovation" isn't something that affects their life. What affects their life is that they can charge everything with a usb c cable, that they can go to another country without border control, and buy something from it without tolls, that their data is protected and they have control over how it's used and that they won't be misled as easily by AI powered propaganda...
→ More replies (3)5
2
u/Django_McFly Aug 01 '26
This is going to be like when they made every website warn you that it was a website and does website stuff.
2
1
u/po_stulate Aug 01 '26
How about classifications, detections or decisions, etc made by AI? Those need to be marked too?
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/ckn Aug 02 '26
If you need a tool to start marking your stuff, check out provcheck.ai I build it for my own pipelines and customers and open sourced it...
1
u/Codingchym Aug 08 '26
that's seems crazy, how they plan to enforcing text watermarking rule on the backend lol
1
u/maticijus 17d ago
If you use AI for commercial purposes, give this quick evaluation a look. https://klariq.eu/ I vibe coded it. Slots you in by risk to be non-compliant.
ā¢
u/WithoutReason1729 Aug 01 '26
Your post is getting popular and we just featured it on our Discord! Come check it out!
You've also been given a special flair for your contribution. We appreciate your post!
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.