And its kind of funny when non-legal experts attempt to say something is fine or not.
It depends highly on not only how its written but the spirit of what the EU is attempting to do. The knee jerk reaction is probably that historically institutions do a terrible job of writing rules and especially rules around new technology.
And not entirely trying to call you out but the devil is in the details. I don't necessarily disagree with the ideas but implementations often fall short and you end up with lots of litigation in court to figure out the spirit of the rule. My main complain here is that how much of the focus is on AI implementations? What is AI? Should the rules not be crafted more on the protection of certain classes and ideas and not on the implementation of AI?
An actual lawyer will probably agree with you. And also charge me to give me the same opinion.
They will also say “but if you end up being sued, it’s not my fault”.
So basically I just need to second guess everything I do, until someone somewhere gets sued and loses and another dude gets sued and loses. At that point we will have some idea about what the law really entails (at which point they change it and the cycle restarts)
In the meantime, my US competitors are just moving full steam ahead.
It depends highly on not only how its written but the spirit of what the EU is attempting to do. The knee jerk reaction is probably that historically institutions do a terrible job of writing rules and especially rules around new technology.