6 ms·

If ChatGPT is blocked it's because of country-laws, not EU. It's perfectly usable inside Germany

by Akashic101 2y ago

_giorgio_ 2y ago
[flagged]
- ricc 2y ago
  I believe it’s not because Germany actively blocked it, but rather Google did not make it available yet.
  - _giorgio_ 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - _giorgio_ 2y ago
        The app is not available means that it's blocked https://www.google.com/search?q=what+ai+blocked+in+eu+gemini+chatgpt https://www.google.com/search?q=what+ai+blocked+in+eu+gemini... https://leancode.co/blog/how-to-use-gemini-api-in-europe https://leancode.co/blog/how-to-use-gemini-api-in-europe
        dns_snek 2y ago
        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.
        _giorgio_ 2y ago
        OMG you're regarded. 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?
        dns_snek 2y ago
        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. ;)
        _giorgio_ 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dns_snek 2y ago
        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.
      - _giorgio_ 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - dang 2y ago
        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 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.
        dns_snek 2y ago
        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.
        dang 2y ago
        > 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 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&query=intent%20effects%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment 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 breaking the site guidelines and what I scolded them for. Putting all that together, if I go back to your point as a whole, which can be restated like this: > Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation, followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults ... and if I run that through the processing steps I just outlined, for me qua moderator it reduces to: "I don't understand how you can tolerate someone being wrong and breaking the rules." Let's take those two in turn. Someone being wrong is not a moderation issue. People sometimes want it to be, but asking the mods to be the arbiters of truth is a disastrous idea—it would satisfy no one and enrage everyone–a sure path to destroying the community. Nor do we have any power to do so—it's not as if we have a truth meter (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22truth%20meter%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Sorting out what's true from what's false is the community's job, not the mods'. Asking mods to decide the truth is like asking the janitor which books belong on library shelves. So in the end the sentence reduces to "I don't understand how you can tolerate someone breaking the rules", and the answer to that is that I didn't tolerate it. I scolded the user, warned them, and asked them to follow the rules from now on (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39887733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39887733). As I said, I might have done more if you hadn't also been breaking the rules; but when two warring parties are both doing that, the dominant variable becomes the community's concern for even-handedness. That's a complex issue in its own right, and because it's about the community as a whole rather than individual users, it takes precedence.
    - dang 2y ago
      You broke the site guidelines extremely badly and many times in this thread. We ban accounts that do that. 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them from now on, we'd appreciate it.
  - _giorgio_ 2y ago
    API and mobile app are blocked because of multimodality conflict with EU legislation (images etc)

If ChatGPT is blocked it's because of country-laws, not EU. It's perfectly usable inside Germany

_giorgio_ 2y ago

[flagged]

ricc 2y ago
I believe it’s not because Germany actively blocked it, but rather Google did not make it available yet.
- _giorgio_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - _giorgio_ 2y ago
      The app is not available means that it's blocked https://www.google.com/search?q=what+ai+blocked+in+eu+gemini+chatgpt https://www.google.com/search?q=what+ai+blocked+in+eu+gemini... https://leancode.co/blog/how-to-use-gemini-api-in-europe https://leancode.co/blog/how-to-use-gemini-api-in-europe
      - dns_snek 2y ago
        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.
        _giorgio_ 2y ago
        OMG you're regarded. 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?
        dns_snek 2y ago
        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. ;)
        _giorgio_ 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dns_snek 2y ago
        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.
    - _giorgio_ 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - dang 2y ago
      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 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.
      - dns_snek 2y ago
        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.
        dang 2y ago
        > 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 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&query=intent%20effects%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment 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 breaking the site guidelines and what I scolded them for. Putting all that together, if I go back to your point as a whole, which can be restated like this: > Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation, followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults ... and if I run that through the processing steps I just outlined, for me qua moderator it reduces to: "I don't understand how you can tolerate someone being wrong and breaking the rules." Let's take those two in turn. Someone being wrong is not a moderation issue. People sometimes want it to be, but asking the mods to be the arbiters of truth is a disastrous idea—it would satisfy no one and enrage everyone–a sure path to destroying the community. Nor do we have any power to do so—it's not as if we have a truth meter (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22truth%20meter%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Sorting out what's true from what's false is the community's job, not the mods'. Asking mods to decide the truth is like asking the janitor which books belong on library shelves. So in the end the sentence reduces to "I don't understand how you can tolerate someone breaking the rules", and the answer to that is that I didn't tolerate it. I scolded the user, warned them, and asked them to follow the rules from now on (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39887733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39887733). As I said, I might have done more if you hadn't also been breaking the rules; but when two warring parties are both doing that, the dominant variable becomes the community's concern for even-handedness. That's a complex issue in its own right, and because it's about the community as a whole rather than individual users, it takes precedence.
  - dang 2y ago
    You broke the site guidelines extremely badly and many times in this thread. We ban accounts that do that. 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them from now on, we'd appreciate it.
- _giorgio_ 2y ago
  API and mobile app are blocked because of multimodality conflict with EU legislation (images etc)