Trump is far less likely to take regulatory inspiration from European countries and generally less likely to regulate. On the other-hand perhaps under a 2028 Dem administration we would see significant attention on EU/UK regulations.
The EU/UK are already scaling back the ambitions of their AI regulations out of fear that Trump would retaliate if they put limits on US companies.
Interesting—I’ve had the opposite take for the EU. The low likelihood of regulation in the US seems like it would make EU regulation more important since that might be all there is. (The second point still stands, but it’s still unclear how much that retaliation will happen and what impact it will have.)
It depends on aspects of the Brussels’ effect, and I guess it could be that a complete absence of US regulation means companies just pull out of the EU in response to regulation there. Maybe recent technical developments make that more likely. On net, I’m still inclined to think these updates increase the importance of EU stuff.
For the UK, I think I’d agree—UK work seems to get a lot of its leverage from the relationship with the US.
Anthropic released Claude everywhere but the EU first, and their EU release happened only months later, so to some extend labs are already deprioritizing the EU market. I guess this trend would continue? Not sure.
I think this had to do more with GDPR than the AI act, so the late release in the EU might be a one-off case. Once you figure out how to comply with data collection, it should be straightforward to extend to new models, if they want to.
I did not say that this was due to the EU AI Act, agree that GDPR seems more likely. I mentioned it as an example of EU regulation leading to an AI Lab delaying their EU launch / deprioritizing the EU.
Interesting—I’ve had the opposite take for the EU. The low likelihood of regulation in the US seems like it would make EU regulation more important since that might be all there is. (The second point still stands, but it’s still unclear how much that retaliation will happen and what impact it will have.)
It depends on aspects of the Brussels’ effect, and I guess it could be that a complete absence of US regulation means companies just pull out of the EU in response to regulation there. Maybe recent technical developments make that more likely. On net, I’m still inclined to think these updates increase the importance of EU stuff.
For the UK, I think I’d agree—UK work seems to get a lot of its leverage from the relationship with the US.
Anthropic released Claude everywhere but the EU first, and their EU release happened only months later, so to some extend labs are already deprioritizing the EU market. I guess this trend would continue? Not sure.
I think this had to do more with GDPR than the AI act, so the late release in the EU might be a one-off case. Once you figure out how to comply with data collection, it should be straightforward to extend to new models, if they want to.
I did not say that this was due to the EU AI Act, agree that GDPR seems more likely. I mentioned it as an example of EU regulation leading to an AI Lab delaying their EU launch / deprioritizing the EU.
I think I’d be more worried about pulling out entirely than a delayed release, but either one seems possible (but IMO unlikely).