Meta comes out of the closet: GDPR in its current form must disappear

In the nineteenth century the term robber baron designed for a 19th century American industrialist or financier who had a monopoly on large industries and used unethical practicesAt that time it was mainly heavy industry, finance and railways, nowadays a new generation robber barons by name in the online world. Where am I going? To a pamphlet that this new generation robber barons recently published in which they ridicule and try to blackmail the EU. Please note: you may receive a warning from your security software.

Are you even reading me? All bold text and other annotations are mine.

Fragmented regulations mean the EU risks missing out on the AI ​​era.

We are a group of companies, researchers and institutions that are an integral part of Europe and working to serve hundreds of millions of Europeans. We want Europe to succeed and thrive, including in cutting-edge AI research and technology. But the reality is that Europe has become less competitive and less innovative compared to other regions and now risks falling further behind in the AI ​​era. due to inconsistent regulatory decision making. (MD: Loosely translated: we are important for Europe, but we don’t like the regulations)

In the absence of consistent rules, the EU will miss two cornerstones of AI innovation. The first are developments in ‘open’ models that are made freely available for anyone to use, adapt and build on, multiplying benefits and spreading social and economic opportunities. The second are the latest ‘multimodal’ models, which work fluidly across text, images and speech and enable the next leap forward in AI. The difference between text-only models and multimodal is like the difference between having just one sense and having all five.

Open models at boundary level such as Llama (MD: from Meta, see also this article: Meta’s AI Retreat May Signal EU Regulatory Minefield) – text-based or multimodal – can boost productivity, stimulate scientific research and add hundreds of billions of euros to the European economy. Public institutions and researchers are already using these models to accelerate medical research and preserve languages, while established companies and start-ups gain access to tools they could never build or afford on their own. Without them, AI development will take place elsewhere – depriving Europeans of the technological advances enjoyed in the US, China and India. Research estimates that Generative AI could increase global GDP by 10% over the next decade, and EU citizens should not be denied that growth. (MD: it almost brings tears to your eyes, the attention these writers receive (and the respect they receive for our well-being).

The EU’s ability to compete with the rest of the world in AI and reap the benefits of open-source models rests on its internal market and shared regulation. If companies and institutions are going to invest tens of billions of euros to develop generative AI for European citizens, they need clear rules that are applied consistently and that enable the use of European data. But in recent times, regulatory decision-making has become fragmented and unpredictable, while interventions by the European data protection authorities have created great uncertainty about what types of data can be used to train AI models. This means that the The next generation of open source AI models and the products and services we build on top of them will not understand or reflect European knowledge, culture or languages.The . EU will also miss other innovations, such as Meta’s AI assistantwhich will be the most widely used AI assistant in the world by the end of this year. (MD: That was a round of damage from the signatories)

But the above paragraph gets a little bit more interesting. Because there are two versions of the pamphlet online. And in the other version, the last sentence, with the specific name of Meta’s AI assistant, is missing! Meta apparently had a very big finger in the drafting of this pamphlet.

After the threats comes the ‘demand’:

Europe faces a choice that will affect the region for decades. It can choose to reaffirm the principle of harmonization, as enshrined in regulatory frameworks such as the GDPR, so that AI innovation occurs here at the same scale and speed as elsewhere. (MD: and there is the demand) Or it can continue to reject progress, betray the ambitions of the internal market and look while the rest of the world builds on technologies that Europeans will not have access to. (MD: two more gross insults to hide it well)

This paragraph also becomes a little more interesting. In the other version it reads:

Europe faces a choice that will affect the region for decades. It can choose to reaffirm the principle of harmonization as enshrined in regulatory frameworks such as the GDPR and provide a modern interpretation of the GDPR provisions that still respects its underlying valuesso that AI innovation happens here at the same scale and speed as elsewhere. Or it can continue to reject progress, betray the ambitions of the single market and watch the rest of the world build on technologies that Europeans will not have access to.

I don’t know which version is the most recent, but I have a dark brown suspicion… And the above sentence clearly shows that the signatories want the GDPR ‘modernize’In plain language: dismantling privacy. Robber barons… For anyone wondering where the focus on GDPR comes from, read: Meta’s ‘Pay or Oké’: Is this the final challenge for the EU GDPR? I won’t be going into the shameful Pay or Oké model in detail until later.

Finally, some fear mongering and clarification of what is needed:

We hope that European policymakers and regulators will understand what is at stake if there is no change of course. Europe can’t miss it on the widespread benefits of responsibly built open AI technologies that will accelerate economic growth and unlock advances in scientific research. For this, we need harmonised, consistent, fast and clear decisions under EU data regulation that allow European data to be used in AI training for the benefit of Europeans. Decisive action is needed to unlock the creativity, ingenuity and entrepreneurship that will ensure Europe’s prosperity, growth and technical leadership.

And that brings us to the end of the pamphlet. The Mafia is nothing compared to this.

Oh yes, these are the signatories. It’s a bit of a hodgepodge, but it has eternal value as a Wall of Shame from companies that want to undermine privacy in Europe:

The Dutch 8vance is also on the list, which is almost surprising. Undoubtedly in a last desperate attempt to be allowed to scrape public personal data without being asked and unlawfully. I hope that UWV takes good note of this action. As does the Dutch Data Protection Authority.

The pamphlet looks like a cheap (and unsuccessful) attempt by Meta to get more companies behind her crusade against the EU. Given the extremely diverse bunch, only ten succeeded. It has now become a Meta+ party where a small mouse walking with an elephant shouts that they are stomping so nicely.