To be honest, as much as people complain about EU regulations and bureaucracy, at least they are highly predictable. Every relevant piece of regulation, like the GDPR and the AI Act, was probably more than five years in the making and then added another year or two to take effect.
If I were a frontier lab with a billion-dollar investment under my belt, I wouldn't want to operate in a regulatory environment with the same prediction horizon as the weather.
I do not disagree that there is a political aspect to this article. Todays news on Fable and Mythos are political too. HN has plenty of political articles, yet some are more flagged than others.
I claim there might be a pattern of supression. Are arguing against my main point that it would be good to have more transparency so I can support or refute my claim?
I predict that this will be flagged very soon. I would love for HN to publish some data on likes/flags, even anonymous IDs with some infos like account age and number of posts. Sure someome will argue things here get flagged cause they are political, but I don't buy that.
So it is, as required by law, compliant with the EU AI Act and GDPR? That would be an actual moat, otherwise most companies will probably not see the point. Why pay a EU middleman to non-EU services.
I hate the tendency to make things up and I dont mean hallucinations.
I once had claude code write a python script that emulated the output of my training script, including pretending that loss is decreasing. Why? Because it was unable to install a python dependency.
Everytime I use a coding agent, I need to double check that it's not cutting corners, hard coding things that shouldn't be or straight up rewriting failing test cases.
Doesn't YC have some code of conduct or legal/ethical guidelines? I would assume a legal and compliance department would have some major headache if documented cases of misconduct jeopardize later due diligence. I would not fund or aquire a company on the radar of national regulatory bodies for something as stupid as this.
Isn't search engine results a product that Google offers? [1]
I find the argument quite strange that website owners agreed to Google being able to do anything with that data beyond displaying them in their search results when they wrote that robots.txt maybe ten years ago, but others shall not access those results programatically.
I certainly did not and find using the content google scraped from my website for money or AI (which they also sell on a token basis) more questionable than some third party offering API access to it.
I'm afraid this will soon be abused by spammers & criminals around the world. I think having a free plan in the space of sending mail is a bad idea and puts paying customers at risk of being disrupted because your IP (-block) landed on someones blacklist.
If I were a frontier lab with a billion-dollar investment under my belt, I wouldn't want to operate in a regulatory environment with the same prediction horizon as the weather.