Talk:Artificial Intelligence Act

Does United States have a similar act such as Europe's AIA?
Do we know if the Unitd States is running similar legislation that mimics Europe's AIA? Jurisdicta (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/ Polygnotus (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for your interest. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM please keep discussion limited to the article. Czarking0 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

High risk: "manipulate human behavior"
The article should specify how the act defines "manipulate human behavior", as that seems pretty vague. Pretty much anything that does anything could be argued to manipulate human behavior in some way, so I'm assuming that this is intended to be talking about models intentionally designed to mislead or provoke, but it'd be nice to know if there's a strict definition or if they're leaving it up to judges' interpretations. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The vagueness is the result of lobbying by national governments: At the end, we are left with a 'legislative package' that is certainly voluminous, even talkative, but also very vague. Boud (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Balanced coverage
The current coverage of La Quadrature du Net in the article seems a bit excessive. There has been quite a lot of writing on the topic, and this article is quite opinionated and doesn't seem particularly notable. Alenoach (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you know of other writing on the topic by notable expert sources active on issues of internet liberties and rights, then please add summaries of their main points. WP:NPOV means we add notable sources with different POVs. Governments and big tech corporations can be expected to have different biases to those of grassroots citizens' associations. Currently we mostly have sources that are old, prior to the 21 May 2024 version of the Council of the European Union that LQDN says is significantly different to earlier versions. Other analyses of the changes between the earlier versions and the 21 May 2024 would be useful for encyclopedic coverage. The lead currently gives the impression that changes between versions were minor, and talks about the multiple versions as if there's a single version. A bit like talking about good or bad qualities of a particular Wikipedia article without distinguishing which particular versions of the article are being discussed, despite significant edits. Boud (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll search a bit to see if there were notable reactions to the changes since earlier versions. I still removed a redundant paragraph about La Quadrature du Net. Alenoach (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the discussion you guys are having here. I do not have an opinion on this yet as I am not sufficiently informed, but I felt it may be too early to have a Reactions section. I think a reminder of WP:20YEARTEST is in order. Czarking0 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But why WP:20YEARTEST instead of the more used and popular WP:10YEARTEST? Most of Wikipedia uses WP:10Y. WP:20Y is very rarely used84.54.71.79 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone else has an opinion on whether there should be a "Reactions" section? Alenoach (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think something of the sort is merited, though it might be better termed something like 'reception' or 'responses.' Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ah, did not see this when I added in stuff to reactions. Just thought to flush it out a bit.
 * in terms of WP:20Y, i mean reception matters when the law is passed. we can add an aftermath section later when scholars do eventual research showing how the law prevented 10% more ai generated misinfo or caused 20% reduced efficiency or that it was useless anyways cause we entered another AI bust, whatever shows up. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Procedure 2021/0106/COD
Kaihsu (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedure 2021/0106/COD on EUR-Lex
 * Procedure 2021/0106(COD) on ŒIL