Trump AI plan rips the brakes out of the car and gives Big Tech exactly what it wanted
- Reference: 1753317065
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/07/24/ai_trump_plan_/
- Source link:
[2]The document envisions AI development as a race between those on America's side and those who aren't, and frames domestic and foreign policy in that context.
"We need to build and maintain vast AI infrastructure and the energy to power it," the Plan states says. "To do that, we will continue to reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape, as the Administration has done since Inauguration Day. Simply put, we need to 'Build, Baby, Build!'"
Big Tech got exactly what it wanted in this action plan
The plan comes seven months after President Trump revoked his predecessor Joe Biden's Executive Order on AI. His administration has since focused on walking back regulations.
AI is "far too important to smother in bureaucracy at this early stage, whether at the state or Federal level," the new Action Plan states.
[3]
The essence of the plan is ferreting out domestic regulations that hinder AI development and killing them with fire.
[4]
[5]
The plan extends to state-level AI rules, which Trump had attempted and failed to ban in his recent One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Now, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will direct federal AI funding away from states with regulations that it considers too strict. The Action Plan also calls on the Federal Communications Commission to examine whether state regulations interfere with its operations, and for the Federal Trade Commission to defang itself and sideline investigations that it sees as a burden to AI innovation.
Drawing distinct lines between the US and Europe
The call for deregulation highlights a cultural difference between the US and Europe, said Ronan Murphy, chief data strategist at cybersecurity company Forcepoint and a member of the Irish government's AI Advisory Council.
"The [US] core philosophy is innovation first, market first, heavily deregulated. If you compare that with the European Union, it's regulation first. It's safety, it's precautionary," he said.
The focus on deregulation is equaled only by the push for adoption. The US plan calls for industry-specific regulatory sandboxes to help AI innovators experiment, and for creation of testbeds for piloting AI systems in real-world settings.
[6]
There'll also be a push to use AI in the executive branch, including a secondment program for AI talent so remaining US federal government employees can go where they're needed to work their AI magic.
Just as the Biden EO did, the AI Action Plan will standardize federal AI procurement. This time it will do so using a "procurement toolbox" led by the General Services Administration (GSA). This will include an OMB-run network that provides "High-Impact Service Providers" (presumably foundation model operators) with fast access to agencies.
From now on, the US government will deal only with AI that pursues truth
However, the evaluation criteria for buying AI products and services will be markedly different from the risk-focused criteria specified in Biden's Executive Order. The government will only procure LLMs that are "objective and free from top-down ideological bias" as part of what it calls a free-speech push.
"It's impossible to get rid of bias in general," responded Cathy O'Neil, CEO of the algorithmic auditing firm ORCAA and author of Weapons of Math Destruction. "It's only possible to decide whether a certain way of thinking is acceptable. Which is to say, we would need to share norms and have debates and modify things over time, and even then it would be really hard, just like history is hard and social science is hard. These guys like to simplify everything to being either right or wrong, but it's not that simple."
Trump did his damnedest. In a speech announcing the Plan that also included remarks on transgender athletes and President Biden's use of an autopen, he signed an executive order that in his words bans Washington from “procuring AI technology that has been infused with partisan bias or ideological agendas such as critical race theory, which is ridiculous. From now on, the US government will deal only with AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality."
[7]
"It's so uncool to be woke," he added.
The Plan also calls to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion, and climate change references, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) AI Risk Management Framework. It also specifically mandated looking for bias in Chinese models.
EU tries to explain how to do AI without breaking the law [8]READ MORE
Mia Hoffman, research fellow at the Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), warned that the elements of the EO that address bias might present practical difficulties for foundational model operators who still need to comply with EU regulation. On August 2, new transparency requirements on LLMs come into force under the EU AI Act.
"We would expect these regulations to have a pretty outsized impact on US developers, because the regulation applies at the model level," she told El Reg , pointing out the huge expense of training a foundational model and the unlikeliness that they'll train separate ones for each region.
"So there's limits to how much deregulation the AI Action Plan in the US generally can have, as long as developers have an interest in having their models in the EU market," she added.
The policy of targeting information unacceptable to the government extends to rooting out AI-generated images that the plan says could hinder legal investigations. It floats a possible NIST-controlled "Guardians of Forensic Evidence" deepfake evaluation program and a deepfake standard for the DoJ.
The government's AI adoption push extends into the military. The DoD gets a "virtual proving ground" for AI and autonomous systems and must prioritize and migrate workflows to AI. Given the plan's mandate to "transform both the warfighting and back-office operations" of the DoD, we can assume that some of those AI workflows might involve the pointy end of the department’s activities.
The plan also recommends the development of open financial markets for compute, unlocking what it sees as a market captured by hyperscaler providers. It will connect researchers to AI resources through a resource network and promote open-source and open-weight models among SMBs.
Build, baby, build - on federal land
The 'build, baby, build' language really kicks in on the infrastructure side. Datacenter operators can expect more leeway in construction, with permits loosening restrictions when building around wetlands and other protected waters. It will also grease the wheels by slimming down environmental air and water regulations. Agencies with a lot of federal land will have to allow datacenter operators to build facilities, including power generation plants.
Kate Brennan, associate director of the AI Now Institute, called the whole plan a gift for the big tech companies that will build these datacenters. "Big Tech got exactly what it wanted in this action plan, and we're poised to see an acceleration that is built on deregulatory principles and very little consideration for the public at large," she warned.
[9]How Broadcom is quietly plotting a takeover of the AI infrastructure market
[10]VMware reboots its partner program again – and it looks like smaller players are out
[11]Telefónica Germany offloads VMware support to Spinnaker due to high renewal costs
[12]Citrix signals return to the mainstream hypervisor market with a product it says isn’t quite ready for the job
Trump backed up the language in the plan by signing an executive order to fast-track datacenter development.
All the electricity these datacenters chew through must come from somewhere. The plan recommends a widespread grid modernization program, bringing it all up to baseline standards for resource adequacy. It calls out geothermal and nuclear energy as focus areas.
The Action Plan also continues support for domestic semiconductor manufacturing to support the AI industry, but will strip away some of the CHIPS Act's funding conditions. It doesn't specifically call it out, but it mentions "saddling companies with sweeping ideological agendas," which might refer to [13]inclusivity requirements [PDF] for chip companies.
The plan nods to the American worker with a training program to develop more skilled workers in supporting roles such as electricians and HVAC specialists. This will go from adult to high-school level.
Us v them
The diplomacy section has a definite "with us or against us" vibe. It describes an American AI alliance (a club of allies that get access to US AI tech stacks). There will be a set of export packages to support this. It proposes measures to stop these reaching countries it doesn't like, using location verification features and intelligence community monitoring.
Jacob Feldgoise, senior data research analyst at think tank CSET, put this in the context of the Biden-era AI diffusion rule, which governed chip exports according to a three-tier system. That left countries like China in the red 'no export' zone but created yellow and green zones for semi-trusted and fully trusted countries.
The current administration revoked that rule just before it went into effect in May this year. Feldgoise expects the new controls to stay strict on China but to loosen the controls that would have affected other parts of the world from US chip companies. "If things are relaxed the way that we're expecting, it would mean that many of these companies can export greater quantities to more destinations than they previously would have been able to."
Too many of these efforts have advocated for burdensome regulations
Trump signed an EO promoting the export of American AI models after his Wednesday speech.
The administration expects allies to toe the line on export controls, and this will all be governed by quiet agreements between small numbers of allies. The document explicitly states that the government is backing away from broader multilateral treaties.
Hence, international AI governance gets short shrift: "Too many of these efforts have advocated for burdensome regulations, vague 'codes of conduct' that promote cultural agendas that do not align with American values, or have been influenced by Chinese companies attempting to shape standards for facial recognition and surveillance," the plan states. Consequently, Washington will work with its allies to "promote innovation, and American values".
Risk, schmisk
Aside from its deregulatory largesse and diplomatic insularity, the big takeaway from the plan is its myopic approach to risk. Many other documents including the Biden EO took a rounded approach to risk by considering issues such as civil rights, employee rights, and data protection. Bias was discussed properly in terms of its effect on individuals and the public good.
This plan's conception of risk is more singular. It revolves mainly around bad actors co-opting AI, calls for work with frontier model providers to harden their LLMs, and makes much of the need for secure DoD AI datacenters.
On the cybersecurity side, it calls for creation of an AI-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) that would join the existing network of such centers. There will be a DoD-led secure AI push and a standard on information assurance led by the ODNI. It will also work to fold AI-specific language into existing incident response doctrine, it says.
None of these security and protection measures are bad things. Indeed, they're necessary. But there's a solid corpus of existing work from across the globe that looks at the social and ethical risks of AI, not to mention the inherent power structures that enabled development of the technology and what it might mean for the future. That's nowhere to be seen here. In a country that's leading in the field and harboring most of the investment capital for AI, that's concerning. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/07/white-house-unveils-americas-ai-action-plan/
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/07/white-house-unveils-americas-ai-action-plan/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aIZNOz419fmMafz2_HPU5wAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aIZNOz419fmMafz2_HPU5wAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aIZNOz419fmMafz2_HPU5wAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aIZNOz419fmMafz2_HPU5wAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aIZNOz419fmMafz2_HPU5wAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/10/eu_ai_code_of_practice/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/27/broadcom_ai_ip/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/16/vmware_reboots_partner_program_again/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/11/telefnica_germany_shifts_vmware_support/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/10/citrix_returns_to_mainstream_hypervisors/
[13] https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2024/04/16/OI%20Congressional%20Report-v1-20240313.pdf
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: America First: a training program to develop more ... electricians and HVAC specialists.
In Aristotle's Politics, he contends that there are "natural slaves."
Trump has vindicated his observations. The fecklessness of Americans, allowing themselves to be dragged off by masked gunmen after all that fuss over personal arms and constitutional order, the looting of their own wealth and that of their children.
I'd say it's shameful if I wasn't a fucking yank myself.
Re: America First: a training program to develop more ... electricians and HVAC specialists.
At least the militia driving round in A-Team vans snatching people off the street, the judges wiping their arses on the rule of law, and the billionaire robber barons aren't woke - that's what counts.
Re: America First: a training program to develop more ... electricians and HVAC specialists.
Cough … you mean a
“well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
The original intent was for the militia to be a check on potential *government overreach* and to provide for the common defense.
Shame … the NRA missed their moment.
Re: America First: a training program to develop more ... electricians and HVAC specialists.
The NRA was always a barely covered right-wing militia, a bit like the SA. The guns weren't the goal just the means.
What's repulsive is "liberal" commentators making videos about the detention center in the everglades with the same breathless perverse thrill about a true crime story as it happens live. It's sickening to monetize ongoing suffering and consume it like entertainment while vocally handwringing about it.
Utter fucking moral degeneracy.
Reading between the lines ...
The Technical Press is starting to question AI. It's even on the nightly news! Some are even reporting it as a scam! The investors will find out that it really is a scam any minute now, so all my technical millionaire billionaire friends need to rake in as much loot as they possibly can before the balloon pops! Hopefully they'll give me a cut! If they don't, I'll make Congress tax the hell out of them! I own Congress and the Senate, have you noticed? I'm so great! ... what were we talking about?
Re: Reading between the lines ...
oh, and also f**k all rules, f**k science, f**k environment. Climate change notwithstanding, building in sensitive locations is just really not what you should do.
Also note that those AI companies will not be allowed to export their services to the EU. There are actual rules to give an appearance of reducing risks. Like with the AI offerings in Windows 11, that will hopefully not be rolled out in the EU.
I'd also hope Schrems is doing another push to stop data sharing with the US. No protections exist there any more (I would argue there were few enough last year).
Re: Reading between the lines ...
Tulips, Darien Scheme, South Seas bubble ….
The collapse of the A.I. bubble will be greater than DotCom bubble collapse in 2000 and financial one of 2007.
USA going gangsters on this will be hit hardest. With all of the Agent Orange other damage I can see a significant US credit downgrade to BAA coming.
Perhaps the Euro will become a reserve currency replacement.
Re: Reading between the lines ...
That's actually a best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that AI hype turns out to be self-sustaining (via monetising your - no, make that all - data). Perhaps AI is working exactly as intended; it's just that the intention is not what you thought it was.
Completely fu¢king mad
“Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Re: Completely fu¢king mad
Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
- Alcuin of York
Re: Completely fu¢king mad
“I was in Pizza Express, Woking”.
- Andrew Albert Christian Edward Windsor, Duke of York.
Whether Agent Orange was with him may come back up as topical again. Tulsi Gabbard, Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem will figure it out for Karoline Leavitt.
Re: Completely fu¢king mad
"Gabba Gabba Hey!"
-Joey Ramone
A new definition of madness -
Posting articles on what Trump says over & over again, and expecting a different result.
Re: A new definition of madness -
El Reg said in a comment that they planned to reduce Trump news to a weekly round-up once the inauguration stuff was over and things had died down... but it'll never be over.
Re: Weekly Trumpery -
Oh God, I wish the BBC News channel would follow suit!
Re: A new definition of madness -
> Trump news to a weekly round-up
That would be a heck of a long round up if they did do that!
Re: A new definition of madness -
> That would be a heck of a long round up if they did do that!
Not if you cancel; out all the contradictions.
Re: A new definition of madness -
‘Flood the Zone’ … it’s hard to ignore.
Esp. When so much devastation being enacted, much obscured from much scrutiny whilst much blowing hard about nonsense.
The forthcoming - real soon - newly installed skeptic EPA leadership tearing down the guardrail of the 2009 Clean Air Act CO2 Endangerment ruling as yesterdays wheeze.
What a shithole.
You'll die of cancer and heatstroke in 10 years and you'll like it. Murica.
Re: What a shithole.
It's OK. Drugs are going to be 1500% cheaper, so that should fix it.
Re: What a shithole.
Unfortunately it's not medicinal drugs that will be cheaper...
Sycophantic techbros
[1]Grauniad :
“Once and for all, we are getting rid of woke. Is that OK?” Trump said, drawing loud applause from the audience of AI industry leaders.
Their sycophancy will work until Trump wakes up the morning after another spat with Musk because grok said something about him and Epstein and he pulls funding for everything.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/23/trump-executive-orders-woke-ai
Re: Sycophantic techbros
Grok will be banned for having "ideological bias" :-)
Except, of course, the definition in Trumps head of "ideological bias" is "anything I don't like" so right-biased AI is probably ok, no matter how far right it goes.
"[..] AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality."
And the orange shitgibbon is the one defining truth.
Fairness and impartiality are words he does not comprehend - they were added by the press secretary for PR purposes.
Re: "[..] AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality."
the tangerine tyrant has sign his latest executive order
orange / tango is the new white
free tango spray tan for anyone who can satisfy ICE they are allowed to be in the US
lies (posted on truth) are the new truth
US citizens don't pay for his tariffs
epstein was a misunderstood good guy
everything that is not from trumps mouth in the last 5 minutes is fake news (even if he said it 6 minutes ago)
etc etc
Re: "[..] AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality."
A couple of weeks ago, he was against a "weak dollar", it was all Bidens fault. The Dollar fell (again!) and now he's telling everyone a "weak dollar" is good for business, "we make more money".
Re: "[..] AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality."
No, Karoline Leavitt doesn’t do that.
Re: "[..] AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality."
She doesn't seem intelligent enough to add anything on her own.
This would largely be good stuff if it wasn't for the fact that AI has no intelligence and is basically smoke and mirrors.
"ideological bias"
So basically they’re going to brainwash AI into thinking what they want it to think?
Re: "ideological bias"
There's no shortage of brainwashing about AI.
I would have thought Trump would want AI to pursue the truth - in order to lock it up and hide it from people.
> From now on, the US government will deal only with AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality.
These do not exist. At the minimum, it would require the training data and process to have such attributes.
So a favourable reading of such statement would be that they will not purchase any AI snakeoil. Of course, in reality it means they will only purchase from their cronies. For these idiots, truth = the content of Trump's last tweet and impartiality = spewing out our side's propaganda.
Terminator?
Isn't the lack of regulation of SkyNet what lead to Terminator?
Once the Genie is out of it's bottle it is very difficult to put it back in...
I prefer the EU approach of "It's better to be safe than sorry" over the US approach of "move fast and break things" especially considering all the harm that the current "AI" is already creating...
Lock it up
"From now on, the US government will deal only with AI that pursues truth, fairness and strict impartiality."
Assuming that could be achieved, how are Trump, his sycophantic administration and MAGA morons, going to cope with it inevitably producing inconvenient truths?
They don't want the truth, they want lies, they want an echo chamber. What they say they want is even a lie.
Contrast
"The [US] core philosophy is innovation first, market first, heavily deregulated. If you compare that with the European Union, it's regulation first. It's safety, it's precautionary," he said.
And on the left panel I see the reg article titled-
EU tries to explain how to do AI without breaking the law
If anything useful comes out of AI I am sure the EU will find more ways to end run its own rules and regulations to use it. Probably while trying to fine the big companies for being both successful and based in the US.
Re: Contrast
Because big companies being successful and based in the US has worked so well for the world (*cough* Google, Meta, ...*cough*).
Re: Contrast
@LionelB
"Because big companies being successful and based in the US has worked so well for the world (*cough* Google, Meta, ...*cough*)."
Yes it really has. Most of your PC, windows, god knows how many linux contributors, products etc. Plus Google as one of the best search engines to come about. Whatsapp and before that skype, msn messenger and god knows how many things you have used and do use. So yes.
The EU has been trying to wean themselves off US tech and keep going back. The EU keeps trying to enforce walls to shut out US tech and businesses still use it. So yes.
Re: Contrast
> Yes it really has.
On a purely technological level, maybe... but that's a somewhat misty-eyed vision of "worked so well for the world". Small matters such as wholesale invasion of privacy, data and intellectual property theft, not to mention global platforming for mis/disinformation, social division and rank hatred do not seem to trouble you, as they (quite understandably) trouble, amongst others, the EU.
Some might argue that the latter is an inevitable consequence of the former - a price we must (all) pay for all that tech yumminess. But we accept regulation as essential in many domains (e.g., anti-trust legislation mitigates against "inevitable" bad outcomes of capitalism); there's even a name for that: we call it "the law". Why should we not try to mitigate the downsides of tech, as we do in other domains? (And no, whining "but, but, you'll stifle innovation" does not cut it, for so many reasons.)
The EU's attitude is not an evil lefty anti-US plot: it's a push-back against untrammelled and unaccountable hegemony. Me, I like (some of) Google's tech goodies (Meta's, not so much) - Google are very, very good at what they do (Meta, not so much) - but sorry, I didn't vote for them to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit.
Re: Contrast
@LionelB
"On a purely technological level, maybe"
What level were you considering AI?
"but that's a somewhat misty-eyed vision of "worked so well for the world""
Nope, absolute, solid, visible, fairly difficult to argue against. Absolute benefits.
"But we accept regulation as essential in many domains"
Yes to a point. We also look back at the horrors of history where regulation and law was used for evils.
"Why should we not try to mitigate the downsides of tech, as we do in other domains?"
Why should we ever develop anything new at all? Its dangerous! Like when Ug realised a stone was good for smashing things it caused lots of downsides. Of course vast upsides where we probably wouldnt even exist without the discovery. Or when Ug (unrelated) discovered fire! And pretty much the entirety of development throughout history to which you mistakenly believe is the pinnacle. if you dont believe it is the pinnacle then you must want further discovery and development although it will come with risks.
"The EU's attitude is not an evil lefty anti-US plot"
I know. Its fear. Absolute paralysing terrifying fear. So much so that the central government who cannot possibly have enough information to know anything deems itself the sole god to explain how AI may be developed. Of course it only applies in their walled off little world of the EU which is why they then end up using the developments from outside the EU such as the US and China. All my comment did was point to the contrast.
"Google are very, very good at what they do (Meta, not so much) - but sorry, I didn't vote for them to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit."
Yes you did, when you used them. And when you say world you mean their little world of their stuff under their control. Unless you are gonna go into illuminate conspiracies which would be very strange considering the US gov stomped on Meta to enforce a ministry of truth interference which has been exposed both for X and Facebook.
Re: Contrast
> What level were you considering AI?
I wasn't, actually. So far AI (or ML, as it used to be called) has been moderately to very successful in very specific domains (e.g., automatic language translation), and shows promise in areas such as medical diagnosis, weather forecasting, and many more. I don't see that LLMs have so far contributed anything of value to the human condition - if anything, quite the opposite. I still don't know what they're for .
>> "but that's a somewhat misty-eyed vision of "worked so well for the world""
> Nope, absolute, solid, visible, fairly difficult to argue against. Absolute benefits.
Opinion. We'll have to agree to differ there.
>> "But we accept regulation as essential in many domains"
> Yes to a point. We also look back at the horrors of history where regulation and law was used for evils.
Disingenuous; just about anything you can think of can, and has, been used for evil purposes. That is absolutely not a reason to abandon it (personally, I'm quite grateful to live in a world where the right for others to murder me is heavily regulated).
> Why should we ever develop anything new at all? Its dangerous!
Disingenuous; because new stuff may be useful and may improve quality of life. New stuff may also be potentially dangerous - that's why it may need to be regulated. But you knew that.
>> "The EU's attitude is not an evil lefty anti-US plot"
> I know. Its fear.
Sure; fear of the inappropriate power of unaccountable organisations with agendas that don't generally include good will towards European (or any) people.
> Absolute paralysing terrifying fear.
Apparently not so paralysing.
> Of course it only applies in their walled off little world of the EU
The EU is neither little, nor walled off. If any nation is walling off as we speak, it's the US.
> which is why they then end up using the developments from outside the EU such as the US and China.
Everyone uses developments by everyone - they call it "globalisation", apparently - do keep up.
>> "Google are very, very good at what they do (Meta, not so much) - but sorry, I didn't vote for them to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit."
> Yes you did, when you used them.
No, I didn't - by using their rather good software I voted for them to carry on developing rather good software. I would, in fact, like them to be regulated so as to not be able, as a sideline, to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit. I would even, god forbid, be prepared to pay for their rather good software if loss of their theft and world-domination sideline entailed an alternative revenue stream to support their software development business. Plus, their anti-competitive practices means my choices for alternatives to Google products are effectively curtailed.
> And when you say world you mean their little world of their stuff under their control.
Um, sure, it's called hyperbole. Though I'm not sure I'd use the word "little" to describe the Google world of data theft, intellectual property theft, suppression of competition, political influence, ... gangsterism, in a word.
> Unless you are gonna go into illuminate conspiracies ...
No conspiracy-theorising required - the Google conspiracy to rip us off is right there, in plain sight (they'd probably call it a "business plan").
Re: Contrast
@LionelB
"I wasn't, actually."
Ah ok, it just sounded strange to say "On a purely technological level, maybe" when discussing AI. As for your comments of use, I dont know if anything useful will come from the AI stuff eventually either.
"Opinion. We'll have to agree to differ there."
I was around when calls cost a lot of money and communicating with people in other countries was not cheap nor quick. I was also around before information was so quick and easy to access globally and searchable in ways that were effective. So you might disagree but I would find it hard to understand how.
"Just about anything you can think of can, and has, been used for evil purposes. That is absolutely not a reason to abandon it (personally, I'm quite grateful to live in a world where the right for others to murder me is heavily regulated)."
Hammer meet nail. Spot on. Anything can be used for evil purposes but it would inflict more harm to ban advancement. And we can agree to making murder illegal, which is broad enough to cover the problem. Over-regulating to stop any progression out of fear would cause harm in itself.
"Sure; fear of the inappropriate power of unaccountable organisations with agendas that don't generally include good will towards European (or any) people."..."Apparently not so paralysing."
The EU made such a dogs breakfast of things that they had to try to explain to innovators how they were allowed to innovate. We are talking about explorers going to the unknown with nobody knowing the possibilities and a few people who make up the gov with even less knowledge dictating how to explore. Writing that sounded almost Soviet or N.Korea kind of nuts but hopefully not so bad.
"The EU is neither little, nor walled off. If any nation is walling off as we speak, it's the US."
You say the US is walling off, ok. But then you will struggle to claim the EU isnt walled off too. Note the cries against Trump tariffs yet the EU tariffs. US wants to bring manufacturing home etc, the EU wants to make its own companies to rival US success but doesnt understand why they wont create in their heavy regulation environment. And by little world I mean their little domain in the world (regardless of it being government or a business) because the rest of the world is not ruled by them.
"Everyone uses developments by everyone - they call it "globalisation", apparently - do keep up."
The point seems to have shot by you, no shit sherlock. So others will develop things without the EU regulation by being in other parts of the world, and the EU will then use it. The amusement is then the EU laments not having their own successful version and doesnt seem to understand it is by their own design. Regulating it out of existence, which you (rightly or wrongly) deem the right thing to do. It is the trade off.
"No, I didn't - by using their rather good software I voted for them to carry on developing rather good software."
You use their software which supports their activities. Have a problem with their activities and you can go find something else to use. Instead you want the product but also to dictate the company... no.
"I would, in fact, like them to be regulated so as to not be able, as a sideline, to run the bloody world however they see fit, for their own profit"
You dont think they should make profit or you for some unknown reason think they run the world? Given the example that demonstrates they dont in my last comment even.
"No conspiracy-theorising required - the Google conspiracy to rip us off is right there, in plain sight (they'd probably call it a "business plan")."
And yet where? Show me. Where is this illuminate running the world? And why did they let Bidens government dictate what is truth to them (Meta and twitter as the example)? These world running companies that keep getting low blowed by the EU who wants the product but to dictate how the company is run.
Re: Contrast
Show me. Where is this illuminate running the world?
Trump makes the Illuminati hand symbol regularly. Ergo the Illuminati are running the world through his presidency. Not all conspiracy theories are just theories, Eh? Hmm.
Re: Contrast
"Yes it really has. Most of your PC, windows, god knows how many linux contributors, products etc. Plus Google as one of the best search engines to come about. Whatsapp and before that skype, msn messenger and god knows how many things you have used and do use. So yes."
Have you not realised that the reason US International companies do so well is that they've historically been experts at dodging both International and Domestic Taxes, enabling them to dominate International Markets.
Take a look at Apple, What's it up to now, about $150billion in offshore profit swerving domestic and International taxes? Any attempt at countries putting in Digital Service type taxes to counteract it, results in the US government muscling in like some sort of Mafia.
I've paid more Tax than Amazon has in the UK in certain years. How can any domestic company compete with that?
None of the software you mention is unique in any way, it becomes mainstream due to dominance and money.
Re: Contrast
@elaar
"Have you not realised that the reason US International companies do so well is that they've historically been experts at dodging both International and Domestic Taxes, enabling them to dominate International Markets."
Ok so lets imagine for a moment that is true. The reason for such success from little to global is because they historically avoided being robbed by the governments. That would then logically suggest globally that life could seriously improve by government not stealing so much.
"I've paid more Tax than Amazon has in the UK in certain years. How can any domestic company compete with that?"
Its a fun dream but I doubt it.
"None of the software you mention is unique in any way, it becomes mainstream due to dominance and money."
Cool, so where is the EU version? They looked out in envy at these successes and cried they dont have such. Even suggesting to steal from the successful and give to start up competitors. Oddly the real world doesnt seem to agree. Kinda like the problem of making EV batteries in the EU but putting it off because most are imported from China. The EU regulating out of existence. Its not clean to dig but they want the end product.
Note for the editor....
The paragraph with the Cathy O'Neil quote is missing a quotation mark.
US core philosphy is...
"Profits first. Damages will be paid for by someone else, my money will be safe in some tax haven before the could even see them"
America First: a training program to develop more ... electricians and HVAC specialists.
Guess we don't want to train Americans in logic, engineering, computer science. Let them run the wires, do the duct work. Someone from somewhere else will supply the brains.