Give me compromise, or give me chaos
We recorded 10 claims from this post. 3 were checked against evidence. 7 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (10)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Its pioneering, world-leading AI Act is on the ropes.”
What we tested: As of November 2023, the EU AI Act is in danger of failing.
What happened: The article reports a negotiating walkout and interviews Kai Zenner, who put timely passage at a 50–50 chance after the impasse. It also records unresolved disagreements described by co-rapporteur Tudorache, supporting a serious threat to agreement. (IAPP, )
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“In the worst case, after five years of negotiation, we could wind up with nothing, leaving the citizens of the world more or less1 entirely on the hook for any negative externalities that arise from generative AI, from misinformation to cybercrime to new bioweapons to bias; runaway AI, if it’s really a thing, would also not be covered.”
What we tested: In the worst case the EU AI Act negotiations could produce nothing, leaving citizens largely unprotected from generative AI's negative externalities.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The EU needs to cut a deal.”
What we tested: The EU needs to reach a compromise deal on its AI Act.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“Big tech wants the world to revolve around its new plaything, Generative AI (combined total revenue so far a few billion dollars, just a tiny tiny fraction of the economy), and to exempt it from any regulation.”
What we tested: Generative AI's combined total revenue so far is only a few billion dollars, a tiny fraction of the economy.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“We should not allow that to stand.”
What we tested: Society should not allow big tech to exempt generative AI from regulation.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“So the obvious and correct compromise, which the Spanish government has been trying to push, is a “tiered approach” to try to put the greatest burden on the largest companies.”
What we tested: The EU AI Act should adopt a tiered approach putting the greatest regulatory burden on the largest foundation model companies.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“I hope that some form of compromise survives, placing genuine requirements on (at least) the most capable foundation models, perhaps empowering a scientific committee to adjust the criterion over time, factoring in size, changes in technology, newly identified risks, the nature of deployment, and so forth.”
What we tested: The EU AI Act compromise should place genuine requirements on at least the most capable foundation models, possibly with a scientific committee adjusting the criterion over time.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“If the EU does not find a compromise, we are all in trouble; the only beneficiaries will be the largest companies who are least in need of help.”
What we tested: If the EU fails to reach a compromise on the AI Act, everyone will be in trouble and only the largest AI companies will benefit.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The fact that some regulation is bad doesn’t magically mean we should exempt the AI industry; it means we should craft our regulation wisely.”
What we tested: The AI industry should not be exempted from regulation; regulation should be crafted wisely instead.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“But virtually all existing laws were written before AI was really on the scene, and so very few really envision how AI changes things.”
What we tested: Virtually all existing laws were written before AI was really on the scene, and so very few of them really envision how AI changes things.
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.