cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/61888662
MEPs have sharply criticized the plan. “Our fear is that the implementation of our laws and standards will be called into question by American companies,” criticizes Green MEP Sergey Lagodinsky, for example. “If this is confirmed, it would be nothing less than a capitulation to the pressure and intimidation tactics of the Trump administration.” The EU Commission repeatedly emphasizes that it does not want to change its regulations due to US pressure. However, some of the recently proposed changes in digital legislation, particularly to the AI Act and the General Data Protection Regulation, primarily benefit US companies that are already dominant in the market.
It’s about the EU’s fear of falling back in tech. Which I think is a dumb narrative.
And who pushes the hype that says AI is a must? Who profits the most? Certainly not the EU.
Fear of falling back, but there are no EU companies comparable to Intel, AMD, Apple and MS.
Nothing is certainly a must, but a technology allowing you to submit a project plan (not too detailed, like a school essay or something) and receive a working application (I’m still impressed by Claude) after about a few dozens corrections given, - that seems something more valuable that energy spent.
Similar with technologies allowing swarms of autonomous weapons to function, or really anything autonomous.
Need for perpetual connectivity is bad, but companies have to make money and control their product, AI is solving that. Fundamentally it’s possible that models comparable to Claude Sonnet will run locally on smartphones 10-20 years from now.
The EU certainly doesn’t profit from anything here, it’s just that complacency sometimes turns just being slow into being obsolete, and then into being Opium Wars’ China.
Considering how much energy that used, we’re going to have to disagree there.
You really lost me there. Good Bye.