European Union has procedures for infringement or non-conformity in the reception of directives, but in practice, the fines are relatively small compared to a country budget (or how much money a country gains from taxes by not applying the directive) [1]
Weekly public service announcement: "If you are still using Google search after May 2019 (when ads started to be shown as organic results) you are the cause of your own problems."
> I appreciate when white hats inform companies, governments, and the public about their successful exploits.
Except it took 3 months for OpenAI to notice they did! OpenAI is not a white hat doing pentesting, but someone that is putting random materials on fire to see if they smell. Reckless, stupid, and criminal.
So what? OpenAI may be a problem, but the security of a government website rests on the administrators of that government website. Not on attackers playing nice.
It smells of CCC (Command and Control Center). I would not be surprised if they are testing logistic managements of medium-large groups of people and re-use ideas to get a taste of the Palantir/Anduril/whatever defence contracts pie.
The complaint is totally understandable, BUT the examples do not make sense.
Arduino did not start as some dude selling less than 10 boards a year, but as an educational tool, which THEN ramped up to 100s of boards produced every day.
If your perspective is "I may sell 10 boards this year, maybe", your target is some local/national maker-faire, not a EU marketplace.
I think makers with such limited productions will just fly under the radar (if you sell so little, it's likely you probably won't need to incorporate or declare taxes in a lot of EU countries).
If they sell 100s of products across EU, they probably have at least one over-worked accountant taking care of existing compliance stuff.
It sounds like a pain for any small company, not just individual makers. There are many small manufacturers of boutique equipment that could be sold at dozens units per year, and this would add massive bureaucratic overhead.
You don't need to have a "good knowledge" of a misused technology to hate it when it's used by malevolent people.
In the same way I don't need to be a virologist to know that is better to avoid the flu, I don't need to be a ML/AI expert to see its direct detrimental effects on people, communities, and the internet as a whole.
To use your analogy, I would say the "blanket ban" attitude would be more like wishing all viruses would just go away, or have never existed in the first place, which:
1) is an impossible and unproductive attitude, and
2) fails to recognize the important contribution to evolution, genetic diversity, and our immune systems that viruses introduced, not to mention the possible beneficial applications that could exist by understanding it.
Rejecting something without nuance makes you more vulnerable down the road because it prevents you from building an effective immunity. Engaging with it is the only productive way to mitigate its downsides and promote its benefits.
Exactly, my vaccine against GenAI chatbots is to not use them, which is the equivalent of masking when covid vaccines were not available.
I am just waiting for the GenAI vaccines (ideally regulations, practically people rioting in municipal councils against gigantic data centers opening at their door).
But given your example - I don't care much for the opinion of someone who believes flu is spread by sinful thoughts. It's good to have a base understanding of something that you'd like to speak about.
Are local LLM models also within this hate sphere? What about fully open source vision models? That's what makes an article like this feel hollow - it's just someone talking about vibes.
Or to quote the article:
" But while I took mental notes on what I was observing, I also felt a lack of representation for true, profound, and guttural loathing of AI. The people like me who have only the vaguest idea of what defines AI, but extremely specific examples of why it sucks. "
That's why I think this article is a criticism of neoliberal capitalism rather than anything else. If it wasn't AI, it would be robotics, if it wasn't robotics, it would be Quantum. But i'd like to see better substance in articles on this site rather than just a dislike of robots.
The idea is that merchants will ditch the card-pos in the long run. You scan a QR-code or send money through some app. Satispay does that in Italy and got massive rollout from stores because fees were pretty low also for smaller transfers, so no more "sorry, at least 5 euros to pay with card"
Too bad you will be forced to use a phone then. I don't like having yet another single point of failure. But maybe by that time, the EU requirement to accept cash will have taken force.
Indeed. It's a step forward and two backwards, personally I don't have payment cards on the phone wallet because one company surveilling my purchases is enough.
Hopefully there will be some Wero-powered card option. From a UX point of view, both payers and merchants, it's still the most practical and fast.
Google started to crap on search six years ago. At this point anyone choosing to use google search (I am excluding here all the people that are not aware other search engines exist because Google pays to be the default search engine) are masochists.
[1] https://commission.europa.eu/law/application-eu-law/implemen...
reply