[hankman86]

They should — like scrapping bureaucracy and regulation that is hostile to innovation and costly for businesses. The AI Act, the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, the EU Supply Chain Law, the GDPR etc. are all well intended. Albeit born out of anxiety and a false sense to be able to shield Europe from the bad consequences of modern technology. In effect, these regulations create a culture that is toxic for innovation. Resulting in venture capital avoiding Europe and founders leaving for better shores (ie. the US) to create the next billion dollar company.

By contrast, what the EU should absolutely, categorically NOT do is to create projects like this one. With an absurd number of participating organisations, dysfunctional project goals (like “compliance”) and the ballooning bureaucracy that ensues. What talent are they hoping to attract to this project? Any AI researcher with half a brain would avoid OpenEuroLLM, lest he (or she) drag down his (or her) career and waste precious lifetime for what is guaranteed to turn into another tombstone on Europe’s graveyard of ridiculous publicly funded technology projects.

[voidr]

The GDPR could have worked, though they chickened out in the last moment and designated the US as "safe"(the whole point was to keep the data local), they also allowed countries to interpret the GDPR in such an extreme way that it's now impossible to install security cameras in certain countries like Hungary.

The cookie law made me think that most people in the EU who make these laws need help turning on their computer.

I actually agree with parts of the Digital Markets Act, I should have the freedom to install whatever software I want on my iPad which is crippled by the App Store limitation, it makes my blood boil when I think about the fact that my iPad has a better CPU then my developer laptop, yet I can't run anything on it, because nanny Apple doesn't want me to. We'll see if it will work out though, I don't have high hopes.

I always say that the EU should look at parts of the US that are successful with an open mind and try to understand what's missing, because we have the talent that's not the issue, there is also money in Europe but for some reason I don't feel like I'm going to be building the next Google here. London got pretty close, but the UK decided to Brexit.

I agree that the EU should not try to create innovation, they should just create the conditions necessary for it.

The US also has bureaucracy issues, but it seems that there is so much investor money out there that you can just throw it at the problems to make them go away.

[hankman86]

At the end of the day, legislators need to weigh the consequences of regulation like the GDPR. Has it really helped people retain control over their personal data? I doubt it. Sure, companies like Meta and Google are compliant, have added the necessary features to their products. But to what degree do people actually make use of these? And what harm (if any) is averted in this way.

On the flip side, consider the economic cost that was caused by the GDPR. There are compliance and reporting obligations that require time and personell. There are additional development and monitoring costs. There is an impact on business models that have made it more difficult to monetise a user base. And lastly, there is a huge legal risk. Courts are scrambling to interpret the GDPR and the EU commission is happy to dish out fines (albeit mostly against American Big Tech companies).

On the bottom line, even well-intended legislation like the GDPR may have huge economic costs with little tangible benefits. And that’s not to speak about later legislation like the DSA (censorship) law, the DMA, the AI Act. And worst of all, the supply chain law (even though that’s unlikely to be as much of an issue for the software industry).