Decentralized web technologies have the potential to make the internet more robust and efficient, supporting a new wave of innovation. However, the fundamental technologies and services that make it work are already being hit with overreaching legal threats.Exhibit A: the Interplanetary File System...
I don’t know about the AI act. If it turns out anything like the DMA, it’s probably a good thing. The EU seems to have got a sense for creating regulation that curtails Big Tech while still enabling small actors.
Not really. All these start-ups are in the US for a reason and it’s not just immigration.
The EU would like to do what you say. The AI act contains exceptions for open source and SMEs but that just shields them from being completely wiped out. On balance, they’d still be better off without it.
All these start-ups are in the US for a reason and it’s not just immigration.
It’s in the US because VC firms are in the US, and VC firms are in the US because the US has an economy that produces billionaires, and that is mostly based on the USD being the reserve currency of the world, which is mostly based on the post-WWII world order.
The US was actually more innovative when it was more regulated. The biggest innovations in the US came from the public sector. Deregulation is not conductive to innovation.
Deregulation is a rhetorical device, that should be handled with care. Rules make an economy, just like rules make a sport. Different rules make different sports, and without rules there is none.
If lawmakers/representatives do not make rules, then courts have to make their own decisions. That’s still government making rules.
Different rules lead to different outcomes. The winners of Marathons and 100m races look quite different, although their rules are quite similar when compared with other sports.
Some people want to be allowed to pollute and call deregulation. They only talk about releasing stuff into the air or the water. They never want to allow people to throw trash into their front gardens.
Pollution is usually regulated by limiting emissions. It is forbidden to release something with more than a certain concentration of some substance. People who talk deregulation, usually think it would mean, that the limit should become infinite. OTOH, these limits explicitly allow you to dump your toxic trash into other people’s front garden (or lungs), as long as the trash comes in small pieces. The default is that you are not allowed to harm other people or their property. So, why should deregulation not mean that you can’t release anything, not even the smallest particle?
The question is not how many rules you have, but what the outcome is. What kind of sport do you play? What kind of economy/society do you get?
The AI act is just bad legislation. I’ve been reading it a bit and some of the stuff is just hair-raising. I don’t know anything in there that makes it worthwhile.
I don’t know about the AI act. If it turns out anything like the DMA, it’s probably a good thing. The EU seems to have got a sense for creating regulation that curtails Big Tech while still enabling small actors.
Not really. All these start-ups are in the US for a reason and it’s not just immigration.
The EU would like to do what you say. The AI act contains exceptions for open source and SMEs but that just shields them from being completely wiped out. On balance, they’d still be better off without it.
It’s in the US because VC firms are in the US, and VC firms are in the US because the US has an economy that produces billionaires, and that is mostly based on the USD being the reserve currency of the world, which is mostly based on the post-WWII world order.
The US was actually more innovative when it was more regulated. The biggest innovations in the US came from the public sector. Deregulation is not conductive to innovation.
Deregulation is a rhetorical device, that should be handled with care. Rules make an economy, just like rules make a sport. Different rules make different sports, and without rules there is none.
If lawmakers/representatives do not make rules, then courts have to make their own decisions. That’s still government making rules.
Different rules lead to different outcomes. The winners of Marathons and 100m races look quite different, although their rules are quite similar when compared with other sports.
Some people want to be allowed to pollute and call deregulation. They only talk about releasing stuff into the air or the water. They never want to allow people to throw trash into their front gardens.
Pollution is usually regulated by limiting emissions. It is forbidden to release something with more than a certain concentration of some substance. People who talk deregulation, usually think it would mean, that the limit should become infinite. OTOH, these limits explicitly allow you to dump your toxic trash into other people’s front garden (or lungs), as long as the trash comes in small pieces. The default is that you are not allowed to harm other people or their property. So, why should deregulation not mean that you can’t release anything, not even the smallest particle?
The question is not how many rules you have, but what the outcome is. What kind of sport do you play? What kind of economy/society do you get?
The AI act is just bad legislation. I’ve been reading it a bit and some of the stuff is just hair-raising. I don’t know anything in there that makes it worthwhile.