What are you talking about? Both ChatGPT and Gemini are available in the EU.
"EU is just mad" is such a bad faith reductionist take. If you want to live in a corporate dystopia without antitrust & privacy enforcement then go ahead, but don't expect us to follow you.
It works fine in Italy. ChatGPT just had to comply with local privacy regulations (EU's GDPR) and for a few weeks it was off. They were interested in doing this because other countries could have made a case against them, it's just that Italy was the first to move.
Okay, first, please don't follow me around HN, this isn't Reddit. Second, anti-trust enforcement is an essential element of a functioning capitalist economy while privacy & AI safety regulations are essential to proper functioning of our society.
You seem to be naively basing your entire world view on the self-serving opinions of Big Tech CEOs. (Linked in another comment). Perhaps reconsider how you arrive at your opinions?
Personally I don't want to be drinking polluted water, eat unsanitary food, live in a place where all housing is owned by a handful of entities that engage in price-fixing, work 80 hours a week in an environment when response to mass worker suicides is to install suicide nets, have my privacy violated by private corporations (foreign or domestic) or have my insurance rates tripled by some opaque discriminatory AI, but you do you in whatever dystopian future you dream of.
I'm in EU and if I open gemini.google.com, it works! Either all of us EU users are experiencing collective hallucinations, or you don't understand your own linked sources. Feeding the trolls is technically against the site guidelines so I should stop, but I am curious what your motivations are for blatantly lying about easily verifiable facts, on a public forum.
Why you aren't able to understand that AI has been blocked, and that currently it's still blocked since you can't use the API and the app, and there are still restrictions on many EU countries. You're just regarded
So your evidence for "EU blocking AI innovation" consists of 1 singular LLM not being offered as an API in the EU, even though it's readily available as an end-user product, i.e. in the form that most people will consume.
Man, if EU is trying to "block AI" as you say then they're doing a really awful job - all the market leaders are readily available through any interface your heart desires. ;)
Please stop pestering me. Your claim is not based in fact, and it won't become one through spaced repetition. ChatGPT has never been blocked in the EU, and neither were LLaMA, Mistral AI, or Gemini - Google has a well-established history of slow roll-outs with their new product launches.
ChatGPT, the end-user-product, was briefly banned in Italy, following a data leak in OpenAI's systems, and in connection with their illegal data-gathering practices and lack of age verification which they promptly addressed in a matter of weeks. GPT-4 remained available through OpenAI APIs during this time.
And yes, the EU AI act has completely blocked some AIs because of their potential to harm the general public, no argument there. We ban guns for the same reasons.
You also broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this thread—not as badly as the other account, but bad enough to make this flamewar considerably worse. That's not cool.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.htmland stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it. Among other things, that means not getting aggressive with other users, no matter how wrong they are or you feel they are.
I'm sorry, I got carried away. I shouldn't have aggravated the troll after they started stalking my past comments on HN with childish insults.
Edit: Not that this excuses it, but I didn't react the way I did because I thought someone was "wrong", but because this is a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation, followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults.
Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate that.
> Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate that.
Not tolerating it isn't as simple as you might think. You made it harder in this case by breaking the rules yourself. If you hadn't, I could have banned the other account. But if I had banned the other account without also banning you, they (or someone else) would have asked why it was ok for you to break the rules but not ok for them to.
(I didn't want to ban your account because when I looked at its history, I didn't see much egregious abuse, although I did see you casually breaking the site guidelines quite a bit.)
You did the same thing again just an hour ago. That is, you replied to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39891679 by breaking the site guidelines yourself, thus preventing moderation from working the way it normally would.
Edit:
Since you're more or less asking why moderation works the way it does in a case like this, I thought it might be interesting to unpack the following sentence from a moderation point of view: "I didn't react the way I did because I thought someone was "wrong", but because this is a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation, followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults. Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate that."
This may sound odd, but when I read that through (let's say) moderator glasses, it reduces to two things: "they [i.e. the other person] were wrong" and "they were breaking the rules". At risk of being tedious, I can show the steps I take from what you wrote to those two things. Maybe this will be of interest, maybe not, but it's certainly a representative example.
> a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation
When I read this, I have to take out the parts that I (as a moderator) can't act on. The first thing that has to go is the word "deliberately". That refers to intent, which is difficult to assess on the internet and impossible to prove. I can't act on that. (Past explanations on this point: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...)
Commenters use words like "deliberately" all the time about other commenters that they're annoyed with. Such words are intensifiers for expressing how they feel about the other person. In processing such language as a moderator, I have to cut "deliberately", and I also have to cut "a clear case" for the same reason. These things are not at all clear; they just feel clear to the people embroiled in an argument. One can safely assume that the other person feels just as "clearly" about oneself.
Once I cut "deliberately" and "a clear case", we have:
> repeatedly spreading misinformation
The word "misinformation" is another that commenters use a lot, mostly as an intensifier for how they feel about the other person or their view. It's not so different from saying "deliberately wrong". If, again, I cut out the assumption about intent, it reduces to "wrong".
In other words, from a moderation perspective your phrase "a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation" really does boil down to "they were wrong". There are additional layers of intensity in what you wrote, and I can listen to them as an expression of how you feel, but it's no basis for moderation. (Nor is someone being wrong; more about that in a minute.)
That leaves:
> followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults
Yes, this is basically how the other user was bre...
I appreciate your elaborate response, I'm going to try to elaborate on my thought process.
In this thread they claimed that both Gemini and ChatGPT were banned by EU and used that as basis for expressing general anti-EU sentiments, but just a few days ago they were talking about life in Italy and how they use both Gemini and ChatGPT (one of them being paid, if I recall correctly).
How could someone genuinely believe that these tools were banned if they were a paid user of them, in the EU no less? An an aside, I believe this comment had been edited, could you confirm? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39882180
I used words such as "deliberate", "misinformation", and "troll" because they expressed obviously incompatible claims just days apart, and my opinion was strengthened after after they kept repeating the claim of an EU ban in the face of other people who chimed in to say that both of those services were in fact available in the EU.
Regardless, I shouldn't have responded to them after my initial comment in this thread, but from my perspective, nothing really happened moderation-wise. I find it odd that you would later equate[1] their actions with my continued responses that steered clear of flame-bait insults and focused on the subject of this discussion. My tone was snarky but it largely developed after they had followed me across 3 threads and repeatedly spammed insults in my feed every few minutes (this triggered notifications, which didn't help in this case).
I apologized, but then I received another reply which I just flagged and ignored because it resorted to insults again. Later in the day (>12h later) I was curious and checked to see if any action had been taken and it hadn't, which I took as a sign that it was tolerated.
I then responded with what I think was a very neutral response to someone essentially calling me retarded again. My comment directly addressed most of the claims they had made in this thread because I considered it to be my final response to this topic but instead my comment was flagged in short order.
I try to stick to the guidelines (as you've pointed out, I find myself overstepping in certain situations, but as a rule, I try not to), so I don't understand why I'm being scolded in this instance. (1) Was I not supposed to respond at all, or (2) is there something severely wrong with my response?
In the case of (1) why wasn't their instigation acted on? I tried to do the right thing at first, or (2) why does my comment require swift moderation action when it's a comparatively mild and on-topic response to their insults?
I don't believe that my actions rose to the same order of magnitude of rule-breaking as theirs, but if you believe that my actions have been ban-worthy on their own merit, then so be it, I'll take it.
[1] You said otherwise, but you're equating them in practice by saying that you can't ban them without banning me too. I was also close to shadowbanned after your initial action, so it seems like the consequences were equal nonetheless.
How out of touch are you? no offense, but if you don't see the game that Google is playing with these childish shenanigans, I don't know what to say - it's politics.
And of course the regulation of AI is also extremely important. The US government is doing the same thing, but 10 years later (see the recent antitrust case against Apple).
Agreed, but I think that Google is also trying to create outrage against the DMA (or is it DSA in this case?) by complying in the most annoying way possible - “here is a map, but you cannot click it because EU”.
Similar to the browser choice screen in iOS, they could also direct you to a page where you select your map provider, which would then be remembered for future map clicks. This doesn’t disadvantage Google Maps competitors and does not introduce this annoyance.
(The right answer now should not be to bash the EU, but to move to another search engine that cares about their users more than making their lives more miserable out of spite.)
There is virtually no intelligent discourse on Reddit left. It is a very angsty, hostile place veiled in a thick layer of fake virtue.
Unfortunately many of internets town halls are going the same way.
10 years ago I thought the solution to the declining positive discourse on the internet was profiles attached to real names, real photos. Then twitter proved me wrong.
AFAIK, these tight regulations are only applicable for those big enough to be considered “gatekeepers.” Can’t remember the specific criteria but should be easy to research.
So it’s kind of “fear-mongering” to say that it also applies to startups.
54 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] thread"EU is just mad" is such a bad faith reductionist take. If you want to live in a corporate dystopia without antitrust & privacy enforcement then go ahead, but don't expect us to follow you.
You tell us, you were just caught lying on both of your claims. Perhaps it was to give mindless Anti-EU crusaders a new talking point?
You seem to be naively basing your entire world view on the self-serving opinions of Big Tech CEOs. (Linked in another comment). Perhaps reconsider how you arrive at your opinions?
Personally I don't want to be drinking polluted water, eat unsanitary food, live in a place where all housing is owned by a handful of entities that engage in price-fixing, work 80 hours a week in an environment when response to mass worker suicides is to install suicide nets, have my privacy violated by private corporations (foreign or domestic) or have my insurance rates tripled by some opaque discriminatory AI, but you do you in whatever dystopian future you dream of.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+ai+blocked+in+eu+gemini...
https://leancode.co/blog/how-to-use-gemini-api-in-europe
Why you aren't able to understand that AI has been blocked, and that currently it's still blocked since you can't use the API and the app, and there are still restrictions on many EU countries. You're just regarded
Sincere question. Are you disabled?
Man, if EU is trying to "block AI" as you say then they're doing a really awful job - all the market leaders are readily available through any interface your heart desires. ;)
ChatGPT, the end-user-product, was briefly banned in Italy, following a data leak in OpenAI's systems, and in connection with their illegal data-gathering practices and lack of age verification which they promptly addressed in a matter of weeks. GPT-4 remained available through OpenAI APIs during this time.
And yes, the EU AI act has completely blocked some AIs because of their potential to harm the general public, no argument there. We ban guns for the same reasons.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.htmland stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it. Among other things, that means not getting aggressive with other users, no matter how wrong they are or you feel they are.
Edit: Not that this excuses it, but I didn't react the way I did because I thought someone was "wrong", but because this is a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation, followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults.
Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate that.
Not tolerating it isn't as simple as you might think. You made it harder in this case by breaking the rules yourself. If you hadn't, I could have banned the other account. But if I had banned the other account without also banning you, they (or someone else) would have asked why it was ok for you to break the rules but not ok for them to.
(I didn't want to ban your account because when I looked at its history, I didn't see much egregious abuse, although I did see you casually breaking the site guidelines quite a bit.)
You did the same thing again just an hour ago. That is, you replied to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39891679 by breaking the site guidelines yourself, thus preventing moderation from working the way it normally would.
Edit:
Since you're more or less asking why moderation works the way it does in a case like this, I thought it might be interesting to unpack the following sentence from a moderation point of view: "I didn't react the way I did because I thought someone was "wrong", but because this is a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation, followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults. Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate that."
This may sound odd, but when I read that through (let's say) moderator glasses, it reduces to two things: "they [i.e. the other person] were wrong" and "they were breaking the rules". At risk of being tedious, I can show the steps I take from what you wrote to those two things. Maybe this will be of interest, maybe not, but it's certainly a representative example.
> a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation
When I read this, I have to take out the parts that I (as a moderator) can't act on. The first thing that has to go is the word "deliberately". That refers to intent, which is difficult to assess on the internet and impossible to prove. I can't act on that. (Past explanations on this point: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...)
Commenters use words like "deliberately" all the time about other commenters that they're annoyed with. Such words are intensifiers for expressing how they feel about the other person. In processing such language as a moderator, I have to cut "deliberately", and I also have to cut "a clear case" for the same reason. These things are not at all clear; they just feel clear to the people embroiled in an argument. One can safely assume that the other person feels just as "clearly" about oneself.
Once I cut "deliberately" and "a clear case", we have:
> repeatedly spreading misinformation
The word "misinformation" is another that commenters use a lot, mostly as an intensifier for how they feel about the other person or their view. It's not so different from saying "deliberately wrong". If, again, I cut out the assumption about intent, it reduces to "wrong".
In other words, from a moderation perspective your phrase "a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation" really does boil down to "they were wrong". There are additional layers of intensity in what you wrote, and I can listen to them as an expression of how you feel, but it's no basis for moderation. (Nor is someone being wrong; more about that in a minute.)
That leaves:
> followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults
Yes, this is basically how the other user was bre...
In this thread they claimed that both Gemini and ChatGPT were banned by EU and used that as basis for expressing general anti-EU sentiments, but just a few days ago they were talking about life in Italy and how they use both Gemini and ChatGPT (one of them being paid, if I recall correctly).
How could someone genuinely believe that these tools were banned if they were a paid user of them, in the EU no less? An an aside, I believe this comment had been edited, could you confirm? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39882180
I used words such as "deliberate", "misinformation", and "troll" because they expressed obviously incompatible claims just days apart, and my opinion was strengthened after after they kept repeating the claim of an EU ban in the face of other people who chimed in to say that both of those services were in fact available in the EU.
Regardless, I shouldn't have responded to them after my initial comment in this thread, but from my perspective, nothing really happened moderation-wise. I find it odd that you would later equate[1] their actions with my continued responses that steered clear of flame-bait insults and focused on the subject of this discussion. My tone was snarky but it largely developed after they had followed me across 3 threads and repeatedly spammed insults in my feed every few minutes (this triggered notifications, which didn't help in this case).
I apologized, but then I received another reply which I just flagged and ignored because it resorted to insults again. Later in the day (>12h later) I was curious and checked to see if any action had been taken and it hadn't, which I took as a sign that it was tolerated.
I then responded with what I think was a very neutral response to someone essentially calling me retarded again. My comment directly addressed most of the claims they had made in this thread because I considered it to be my final response to this topic but instead my comment was flagged in short order.
I try to stick to the guidelines (as you've pointed out, I find myself overstepping in certain situations, but as a rule, I try not to), so I don't understand why I'm being scolded in this instance. (1) Was I not supposed to respond at all, or (2) is there something severely wrong with my response?
In the case of (1) why wasn't their instigation acted on? I tried to do the right thing at first, or (2) why does my comment require swift moderation action when it's a comparatively mild and on-topic response to their insults?
I don't believe that my actions rose to the same order of magnitude of rule-breaking as theirs, but if you believe that my actions have been ban-worthy on their own merit, then so be it, I'll take it.
[1] You said otherwise, but you're equating them in practice by saying that you can't ban them without banning me too. I was also close to shadowbanned after your initial action, so it seems like the consequences were equal nonetheless.
I'm not going to ban you right now because the other account was also being aggressive, but if you keep breaking the rules, we're going to have to.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them from now on, we'd appreciate it.
Gemini is available in the EU. The EU launch was delayed by a month to implement the required regulatory controls.
And of course the regulation of AI is also extremely important. The US government is doing the same thing, but 10 years later (see the recent antitrust case against Apple).
Bureaucrats can't do anything. They just try to stop innovation.
EU is just hurting its own startups.
USA, India, China. They all have multibillion AI companies. EU doesn't because nobody wants to deal with unpredictable lawmakers
https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/03/16/eu-ai-act-reaction-...
Similar to the browser choice screen in iOS, they could also direct you to a page where you select your map provider, which would then be remembered for future map clicks. This doesn’t disadvantage Google Maps competitors and does not introduce this annoyance.
(The right answer now should not be to bash the EU, but to move to another search engine that cares about their users more than making their lives more miserable out of spite.)
I will personally love to see a link to openstreetmaps that tends to be more detail in my area.
This feels more like being evil, than trying to provide a good experience to the user and being nice. (Maybe they are working on that already)
Google chose to do it this way.
Unfortunately many of internets town halls are going the same way.
10 years ago I thought the solution to the declining positive discourse on the internet was profiles attached to real names, real photos. Then twitter proved me wrong.
So it’s kind of “fear-mongering” to say that it also applies to startups.
I am the source :-D
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/google-maps-quickcl...