Not only do they have clear requirements and guidelines, they're codified into law.

The core aims of the law are unambiguous in both aim and implementation, and serve to enforce existing consumer rights. Please feel free to highlight which of these you feel represents an onerous or undue burden on the corporations in the name of enforcing some very basic ethical guardrails for the vulnerable in society.

- Swift removal of illegal content online, including products, services: a clearer “notice and action” procedure where users will be empowered to report illegal content online and online platforms will have to act quickly.

- Victims of cyber violence will be better protected especially against non-consensual sharing of illegal content (revenge porn) with immediate takedowns.

- Transparency obligations for platforms allow users to be better informed about how content is recommended to them (recommender systems) and to choose at least one option not based on profiling.

- Online advertising: users will have better control over how their personal data are used. Targeted advertising is banned when it comes to sensitive data (e.g. based on sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity).

- Protection of minors: platforms accessible to minors will have to take specific measures to protect them, including by fully banning targeted advertising.

- Manipulating users’ choices through ‘dark patterns’ will be prohibited. Moreover, cancelling a subscription for a service should become as easy as subscribing to it.

- Compensation: recipients of digital services will have a right to seek redress for any damages or loss suffered due to infringements by platforms.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220412IP...

▲

danielfoster 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, I know about these requirements, but it's still unclear about how they apply to ChatGPT in every scenario. For example, are they supposed to monitor all chats for potentially illegal content and delete such chats immediately? What aspects of AI could be harmful to minors and what is an appropriate way to mitigate these harms?

Or if I've previously told ChatGPT I'm gay, consented to its use of memory across chats, and, after asking about say "What's the best lube for anal?" it later recommends me a lube specifically intended for anal sex that is popular within the gay community, is it making a prohibited product recommendation based on sexual orientation?

One might counter with the argument that these are minor issues, but given the EU's wide latitude in determining the amount of a fine, the requirements should not be open to interpretation.

▲

ezst 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Thanks for taking the time to write this down and cite sources. I'm baffled by the recent-ish increase of such dismissive and lazy comments as the one you responded to.

	▲	fwn a day ago \| parent [-]
		I think that this take is unfair to the parent. Many VLOP requirements currently lack best practices, and it's clear that affected companies borrow from each other to mitigate compliance risks. The commission even seems to encourage knowledge sharing here. (This is also why you see them resorting to strange language that barely fits their platform mechanic.) We could argue whether a higher level of government oversight is warranted for platforms above a certain threshold. We could discuss the additional compliance burden that these companies should face. All of these questions are valid (and important for DSA). However, it is not plausible to deny the case-by-case uncertainties that you still face as an affected company. This is expectend and will only change with more time in the framework, basically.