There is no AI regulation in the US and look at where we are, everyone depends on it, SOTA models are doing CSAM and porn deepfakes, and there's no regulation in the US to prevent this from happening

nor there is regulation to inform a user something uses AI or the dangers of being dependent on this magical oracle.

Quantity of regulation isn't the point. It is quality. The right regulations are the right regulations. They mitigate risks and can encourage innovation. 'too much/too little' arguments are almost universally wrong.

So most people not wanting to hear sonic booms to benefit a small group of high wealth fliers is bad?

Take the agricultural policies in the EU. They want to correct against overproduction while doing ecologically good but they interpolate of cause from past data. Now take the hottest year on earth to come in 2027 due to El Nino and that collapsing already strained expected harvest and you are looking at reasonable policies producing starvation, due to a inability to plan for a future not in the data yet.

And the whole glut is artifical in the first place because surplus wheat is not allowed to be used as energy, no it must rot in storage snd get "animal grade" before you can use it otherwise. The whole reason the eu system still works is because the traders largely ignore the central planing system, shipping things from high regulated eu countries to "i dont give a f**" countries, recertify it there and then reimport.

"Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart."

That is "reductio ad absurdum".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

As I said, and others pointed out:

quality regulations don't curtail innovation.

I repeat, if your business model (which like the big majority of the entrepreneurial world is based on) is against regulation, it's wrong.

I don't think it's acceptable to have a billionaire tech bro dictating everything I do in my life while he gets rich by selling my data. One of the reasons regulation exists is to protect customers.

It's about damn time the business world moved away from the capitalism mindset that you NEED to explore the consumer to be successful. We have a lot of examples in Europe where if the company is even a bit less shitty and is sympathetic to the customer, it increases trust and brings in more revenue because your customers trust it.

The blah user experience isn't the whole picture for GDPR. It's just been the most visible part of it.

My personal GDPR hot take: it's actually been 2 steps forward and 1 super clumsy super loud and obnoxious step back.

I agree with the spirit of comment above. The common sense part of it (if there is one) might just end up eclipsed by wonky UX absurdity. Someone will find a way to paint this picture that our EU reality is a Kafkaesque dystopia.

I've heard lots of people use it to actually find out what you were being banned for even when the company absolutely does not want to disclose it.

> (i.e. popups, banners large enough to push users to interact with them, etc.).

"i.e." doing a lot of work there.

GDPR doesn't require pop-ups or banners for providing consent. It mentions "ticking a box when visiting an internet website" as an example implementation. But it's just there as an example.

https://gdpr.eu/Recital-32-Conditions-for-consent/

the mechanism for gathering consent is an implementation detail left to the site to handle because GDPR applies to far more than websites. i've had to provide consent for things completely unrelated to websites.

you could add a line of text saying "please write us a letter with the following information (user account, blah, blah) if you are willing to provide consent for optional tracking like blah blah" and this is perfectly in line with GDPR.

sure, it's more expensive and you'll get fewer people who you can track. but make no mistake, sites make a decision and choose pop-ups/banners as their implementation for gathering consent because they don't want to lose out. they're happy inflicting pop-ups/banners on their users instead so they can keep their precious tracking cookies going.

i.e. GDPR doesn't require pop-ups/banners, sites choose pop-ups/banners.

Is it really misinformation? The popups may largely be a result of misunderstandings or malicious compliance, but GDPR has a causal relationship regardless of the intent.