The Florida suit proves that 230 does not provide blanket immunity and States have work arounds. If that’s the case, removal of the 230 protection may not matter. I’m not opposed to limiting the immunity of AI companies selling products where the role of that company is more than just simply a pass through, which has been the argument in the past. There are important immunities that allow for expression but it should not be a complete cover for AI products. It needs some thought if applied in this area, but you raise a fair point.
The Florida case has several problems in my mind. It certainly raises a different standard than someone following poor or even incorrect medical advice posted on the internet. It’s like moving from a vehicle with lane assist to FSD. The liability obligation of the manufacturer vs the driver increases.
You’re not really speaking to AI regulation in terms of its power, scope, abilities, access by the public and how much that should be controlled. I think that’s the focus of the discussion not the physical housing of DC’s and where. These are largely environmental issues that are dealt with by existing policy at the Federal, State, and local levels.
I’ve started using Claude over the past couple months after using ChatGPT almost exclusively, and while I think it’s amazing in comparison, I’ve noticed a huge difference in usage limit degradation lately. I’m paying for the $20 version and sometimes I will use my entire usage allotment in 10 minutes if I’m doing more than just basic tasks. I could sit for hours in a session before. I’m starting to use them both together now (also paid version of ChatGPT) and it does work well pairing them up.
The US spends 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare, while the European Union (EU) spends an average of 10.0% of its GDP
Demographics
The US has a younger population and higher rates of population growth. Conversely, much of the EU faces an aging population and shrinking workforce, which drags down overall economic output potential
The USD as the major reserve currency, pays a big dividend.
This is where the EU’s regulations in relative terms create a cost: Administrative Burden: Smaller businesses and startups disproportionately suffer from red tape and complex reporting requirements. The European Commission has targeted reducing administrative costs to combat this..
The reserve currency USD is another reason for approximately 20% of GDP. But it is the wrong way to build the GDP, because imports deny our manufacturing base while only increasing our sales and marketing revenues.
All of this is off topic and probably irrelevant. GDP is really an irrelevant measure of individual economic health. The US is clearly outpacing Europe and the overregulation of tech is slowing the pace of its development there, which results in disparate economic benefits here vs there.
I don’t have any interest in discussions about our role as the reserve currency or the wrong or right way to build GDP. I mow my lawn and you mow yours. We decide to switch and you pay me $10 to mow yours and I pay you $10 to mow mine. It adds $20 to the GDP but neither one of us has gained additional free time or improved our economic standing.
I do not have problems with eliminating regulations that have outlived their original purposes. I do have a problem with Trump Admin taking a meat ax to medical, environmental and safety regulations that that have science backing them. If AI tis truly science based, will AI eliminate Trump Admin non-science based actions?
Then, are you really following the science? It would seem that to be consistent, one would want science and logic to determine when and when not a regulation should exist.
I don’t have an opinion on the current or past administration’s broad policy and regulatory decisions or the methodology for arriving at them, at least not here. The discussion is specifically on AI and what if any role the GOVT should play currently in directing or curtailing its development.
Your response is not about tech. Those are small mom and pops.
The EU privacy rules are the ones that are affecting US big tech. You are not answering the question. Mainly because you are confused about different issues.
The only effect of EU privacy laws is to stop predatory advertising. That is not a loss.
This is like saying you drank a quart of moonshine every day until you died. Therefore, you help the economy of Tennessee. It works on the books that way until the medical costs are factored in. Then you tell me you got carried out in the woods to finish the job. That does not make you a hero.
I’m not confused and the privacy regulation is only one part of the challenge to tech businesses but an important one. It is not solely aimed at protecting privacy. You keep going off on tangents. The discussion is about AI government policy and where it should go or not go currently.
If you’re interested, you might want to take a look at an EU report put together by Mario Draghi (former Prime Minister of Italy and head of the European Central Bank) titled “The Future of European Competitiveness”.
A sample: Across different metrics, a wide gap in GDP has opened up between the EU and the US, driven mainly by a more pronounced slowdown in productivity growth in Europe. Europe’s households have paid the price in foregone living standards. On a per capita basis, real disposable income has grown almost twice as much in the US as in the EU since 2000…
Europe is stuck in a static industrial structure with few new companies rising up to disrupt existing industries or develop new growth engines…
The problem is not that Europe lacks ideas or ambition. We have many talented researchers and entrepreneurs filing patents. But innovation is blocked at the next stage: we are failing to translate innovation into commercialisation, and innovative companies that want to scale up in Europe are hindered at every stage by inconsistent and restrictive regulations… we claim to favour innovation, but we continue to add regulatory burdens onto European companies, which are especially costly for SMEs…
