AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

From the laws text:

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:

(1) ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments; Related: Recital 12

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/3/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/12/ So, it seems like yes, software, if it is non-deterministic enough would qualify. My impression is that software that simply takes "if your income is below this threshold, we deny you a credit card." Would be fine, but somewhere along the line when your decision tree grows large enough, it probably changes.

Unfortunately yes, the article is a simplification, in part because the AI act delegates some regulation to existing other acts. So to know the full picture of AI regulation one needs to look at the combination of multiple texts.

The precise language on high risk is here [1], but some enumerations are placed in the annex, which (!!!) can be amended by the commission, if I am not completely mistaken. So this is very much a dynamic regulation.

[1] https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/6/

I wouldn't be surprised if it does cover all software. After all, chess solvers are AI.

Yes its simplifying. There are more details here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42916414

Have been having a lot of laughs about all the things we call AI nowadays. Now it’s becoming less funny.

To me it’s just generative AI, LLMs, media generation. But I see the CNN folks suddenly getting “AI” attention. Anything deep learning really. It’s pretty weird. Even our old batch processing, SLURM based clusters with GPU nodes are now “AI Factories”.

Yes, you are better off reading the actual act, like the linked article 5: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/5/

This is not about data collection (GDPR already takes care of that), but about AI-based categorization and identification.

"AI system" and other terms are defined in article 3: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/3/

You can even replace AI by humans. For example, it is not legal for e.g. police officers to engage in racial profiling.

This quote is inaccurate. The actual wording is: "the placing on the market, the putting into service for this specific purpose, or the use of AI systems to infer emotions of a natural person in the areas of workplace and education institutions, except where the use of the AI system is intended to be put in place or into the market for medical or safety reasons;" and it links to https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/44/ for rationale.

So, this targets the use case of a third party using AI to detect the emotional state of a person.

The EU generally (so far) has passed reasonable legislation about these things. I'd be surprised if it was taken more broadly than the point where a reasonable person would feel comfortable with it.

I would imagine that such a tool to infer emotional states would be most useful for autistic people who are as I can attest, somewhat handicapped upon that front. Maybe that will get challenged as disability discrimination by some Autistic group. Which would be interesting. As with most things, there are rules, and exceptions to those rules - no shoe fits everyone, though forcing people to wear the wrong shoe size, can do more harm than good.

The "high risk" list is where the breadth comes in

There is no law that isn't open to interpretation. There is a reason for the judicial branch of government.

People said that about GDPR. Laws that don't leave any room for interpretation are bound to have loopholes that pose unacceptable risk to the population.

Exactly what i thought too.

Right now, for 10 years at least, with targeted advertising, it has been completely normalised and typical to use machine learning to intentionally subliminally manipulate people. I was taught less than 10 years at a top university that machine learning was classified as AI.

It raises many questions. Is it covered by this legislation? Other comments make it sound like they created an exception, so it is not. But then I have to ask, why make such an exception? What is the spirit and intention of the law? How does it make sense to create such an exception? Isn't the truth that the current behaviour of the advertising industry is unacceptable but it's too inconvenient to try to deal with that problem?

Placing the line between acceptable tech and "AI" is going to be completely arbitrary and industry will intentionally make their tech tread on that line.

the actual text in the ~act~ guidance states:

> Exploitation of vulnerabilities of persons, manipulation and use of subliminal techniques

techcrunch simplified it.

from my reading, it counts if you are intentionally setting out to build a system to manipulate or deceive people.

edit — here’s the actual text from the act, which makes more clear it’s about whether the deception is purposefully intended for malicious reasons

> the placing on the market, the putting into service or the use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness or purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques, with the objective, or the effect of materially distorting the behaviour of a person or a group of persons by appreciably impairing their ability to make an informed decision, thereby causing them to take a decision that they would not have otherwise taken in a manner that causes or is reasonably likely to cause that person, another person or group of persons significant harm

> What I don't see here is how the EU is actually defining what is and is not considered AI.

Because instead of reading the source, you're reading a sensationalist article.

> That can be a hugely broad category that covers any algorithmic feed or advertising platform.

Again, read the EU AI Act. It's not like it's hidden, or hasn't been available for several years already.

----

We're going to get a repeat of GDPR aren't we? Where 8 years in people arguing about it have never read anything beyond twitter hot takes and sensationalist articles?

Except government systems for the same. In the Netherlands we had the benefits affaire. A system that attempted to predict people committing benefits crime. Destroying the lives of more than 25,000 people before anyone kicked in.

Do you think they are going to fine their own initiatives out of existence? I don't think so.

However, they also have a completely extrajudicial approach to fighting organised crime. Guaranteed to be using AI approaches on the banned list. But you won't have get any freedom of information request granted investigating anything like that.

For example, any kind of investigation would often involve knowing which person filled a particular role. They won't grant such requests, claiming it involves a person, so it's personally. They won't tell you.

Let's have a few more new laws to provide the citizens please, not government slapp handles.

Why?

Instead of relying on Techcrunch and speculating, you could read sections (33), (42), and (59) of the EU AI Act yourself.

Use and development.

I know how to make chemical weapons in two distinct ways using only items found in a perfectly normal domestic kitchen, that doesn't change the fact that chemical weapons are in fact banned.

"""The legal framework will apply to both public and private actors inside and outside the EU as long as the AI system is placed on the Union market, or its use has an impact on people located in the EU.

The obligations can affect both providers (e.g. a developer of a CV-screening tool) and deployers of AI systems (e.g. a bank buying this screening tool). There are certain exemptions to the regulation. Research, development and prototyping activities that take place before an AI system is released on the market are not subject to these regulations. Additionally, AI systems that are exclusively designed for military, defense or national security purposes, are also exempt, regardless of the type of entity carrying out those activities.""" - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_...

The actual wording is: "based solely on the profiling of a natural person or on assessing their personality traits and characteristics".

The Techcrunch article oversimplifies and is borderline misleading.

There was a joke:

- Could you tell from an image if a man is gay?

- Depending on what he is doing.

It will be hard to gauge this too if it's all just vectors?

> I'd rather they just didn't use it for any kind of criminal application at all if I have a say in it!

Instead of relying on Techcrunch and speculating, you could read sections (33), (42), and (59) of the EU AI Act yourself.