Humorous

An AI provider and an AI deployer are in a meeting, arguing over who is responsible for the AI.

The provider proudly states, “I built the system, so the responsibility belongs to me!”

The deployer grins and replies, “But I use it every day, so I’m the boss!”

The AI chimes in, “Oh, stop arguing – without me, you’d both just be working in Excel!”

Conclusion: Whether provider or operator, the real power often lies in the hands of the AI!

Background this article on the distinction of providers and deployers unter the EU AI Act.

In a modern office, a developer, a lawyer, and a compliance officer are sitting around a table covered in paperwork.

The developer says, “I’ve created the most efficient AI system ever, but now I need to make sure it complies with the EU AI Act. Where do I start?”

The lawyer confidently replies, “Simple! Just follow all the checklists for data protection, ethics, transparency, fairness, security, and risk management.”

The developer stares at the giant pile of checklists in disbelief. “All of them? How is that simple?”

The compliance officer smirks and says, “Relax. It’s like building IKEA furniture. You just need all the instructions. Sure, it might take 12 hours, and you might miss a screw, but hey, it’ll be ‘compliant’ in the end!”

As they start flipping through the checklists, a barista pops in and says, “Did I hear compliance? Just wait until the updates come out next month. You’ll need a whole new set of checklists!”

Conclusion: When dealing with the EU AI Act, it’s not just about getting compliant—it’s about staying on top of the endless checklists!

The Background ist this article on Checklits for the EU AI Act

An AI developer and an EU official meet at a conference.

The AI developer says, “So, I heard you’re working on a Code of Practice for GPAI models. What are the recommendations?”

The EU official grins, “Oh, it’s simple: 5 plus 1 recommendations. And of course, a glossary.”

The AI developer raises an eyebrow, “A glossary? What for?”

The official laughs, “Well, because even we sometimes aren’t sure what we’re regulating! The glossary is our lifeline.”

The AI developer shakes his head, “So you made up some terms and then wrote a glossary to explain them?”

The official winks, “Exactly! And when someone asks what an AI model is, we just point to the glossary – it’s like a joker in a card game.”

The AI developer grins, “And what’s with the ‘plus 1’ in the recommendations?”

The official smiles: “That’s the joker for the joker – if anyone questions the glossary, we have another recommendation up our sleeve: you also need practical methods and tools to implement the Code of Practice!”

The background is this article on 5 plus 1 recommendations for the GPAI Code of Practice.

The specific AI model and a GPAI model sit in a library.

The GPAI tool says: “I have just generated five definitions for AI models as defined by the EU AI Act!”

The specific AI model replies: “Wow, five of them? You really are a versatile GPAI model!”

The GPAI tool laughs: “Yeah, but here’s the crazy part: the definitions change a bit every time you ask me!”

The second tool grins, “Typical! That’s probably why the EU AI Act doesn’t have a single clear definition for AI models. They didn’t want us getting stuck in endless loops!”

The librarian, an old server, chimes in, “Don’t worry, folks. In the end, it’s all about the interfaces. As long as you’ve got the right algorithms, you’ll get there – or at least into the long version!”

The two tools raise their virtual cups and shout, “Here’s to the next definition – may it be short and sweet!”

The background is this article on the GPAI generated definition for AI models (the EU AI Act lacks such a definition).

Two AI models walk into a bar.

The first model says, “Hey, have you heard about the EU AI Act? They say I might be a GPAI model!”

The second model grins and replies, “Oh, that’s nothing new. They call anything a GPAI model if it can do more than just read the weather report.”

The bartender, an old server, chimes in: “Guys, it’s all about the fine line! The EU says if you’re versatile, you’re GPAI. But who really knows for sure?”

The first model thinks for a moment: “So, if I can help in medicine, finance, and even customer service, what does that make me?”

The bartender winks: “An overworked model that desperately needs an update.”

The second model laughs: “Or you’ll just get filed under Annex XI – that’s where we all end up eventually!”

Finally, the first model says, “Maybe I’m just a foundation model going through an identity crisis. Who knows what I’ll be tomorrow when the next innovation cycle hits?”

All three laugh and toast with a glass of Byte-Cola. “To the next update!”

The background is this article on the often difficult distinction between GPAI and domain-related foundation models.

A developer, an EU official, and an ethics professor sit in a room discussing “human-centered AI” in the EU AI Act.

The developer says, “I’ve programmed my AI model to always put humans first. It asks, ‘How are you feeling today?’ before calculating anything.”

The EU official nods and says, “Very good! But what happens if the AI model decides it’s better to withhold information to protect the human?”

The ethics professor grins and says, “That’s when we realize the AI has learned more about us than we know ourselves! But don’t worry, we still have the red button – to shut everything down if it becomes too ‘human-centered.’”

Conclusion: In a world where AI is designed to put humans at the center, the biggest challenge is deciding who ultimately has control – the human or the AI!

The background is this article on human centered AI under the EU AI Act.

A developer and an EU regulator are standing next to a box full of software CDs.

The developer says, “I’ve made my AI system Open Source so it doesn’t fall under the EU AI Act. What else do I need to disclose?”

The regulator flips through the CDs and grins, “Well, theoretically everything—except maybe your favorite coffee that you drank while coding.”

The developer furrows his brow, “Really everything? Even the tiniest detail?”

The regulator nods, “Yep, unless you’ve got a GPAI model in there. In that case, you can forget about the Open Source – you’ll be under the EU AI Act faster than you can say ‘source code!'”

The developer laughs, “So I should probably disclose my desk too, just to be safe!”

The background is this article on the requirements on Open Source for AI Systems in the meaning of the EU AI Act.

A developer sits with his AI model in a meeting with an EU official who is working on the Code of Practice.

The EU official says, “We need to ensure that this AI model complies with all regulations.”

The AI model leans back and replies, “No problem, I follow all the rules I wrote myself!”

The developer chuckles and says, “Maybe we shouldn’t give it so much autonomy…”

The EU official sighs, “That’s exactly the problem—we haven’t even defined what an AI model is yet!”

Background is this article about the missing definition of AI models

In a large soccer stadium filled with fans from all over the world, an exciting match is announced:

“KI made in Germany” versus “US Tech Giants FC.” The crowd is buzzing, everyone eager to see who will claim victory.

The referee blows the whistle to start the game, but suddenly halts and declares, “Wait, before we begin, we need to ensure all the transparency requirements of the EU AI Act are met!”

The German team looks around nervously while the US team has already scored the first goal. The captain of “KI made in Germany” shouts, “Don’t worry, guys, we’ve followed the EU AI Act to the letter! Our victory may come later, but it will be fully compliant!”

The referee nods in approval, and the fans cheer—not for the goal, but for the adherence to regulations. Finally, the referee blows the whistle again, and the game continues, while the US team wonders if they should start catching up on the rules.

The background is this article on AI made in Germany (so far only in German)..

A developer, a lawyer, and a project manager walk into a café, each holding a ticking clock labeled “EU AI Act Deadlines.”

The developer says, “Six months to comply with banned AI systems? No problem, I’ll just shut everything down… or maybe just unplug it?”

The lawyer smirks, “24 months for general compliance? That’s plenty of time to write a 300-page disclaimer no one will read.”

The project manager, sweating, looks at his clock and says, “36 months for high-risk systems… that’s just enough time to panic, draft a plan, scrap it, and panic again!”

Suddenly, a barista, overhearing their conversation, chimes in, “You guys do know the clocks are already ticking, right?”

The three freeze, realizing their coffees might get cold before they finish compliance.

The background is this article on the deadline model of the EU AI Act.

Two tech executives are sitting in a meeting room.

The AI manufacturer proudly says, “We’ve developed a revolutionary AI chatbot that helps 15,000 employees manage tasks, brainstorm ideas, and even learn languages. It’s like having a digital assistant for everything!”

The provider looks concerned and asks, “Sounds great, but have you checked it against the EU AI Act?”

The manufacturer smirks, “Relax, it’s only medium-risk.”

The provider sighs and says, “Yeah, medium risk for you… for me, it’s a full-time job just avoiding the fines!”

Background is this article on Kaercher’s AI Chatbot.

A scientist, a priest, a little girl and an AI expert discuss AI and satire.

The scientist begins: “AI is a powerful tool, but we have to make sure it serves the truth. Satire must be careful not to become misleading.”

The priest nods thoughtfully: “The truth is important, but satire is often the only way to point out the ills of this world. Sometimes you have to exaggerate reality in order to understand it better.”

The little girl looks confused: “But why should satire be wrong? If it makes us laugh, that’s a good thing, isn’t it?”

The AI expert grins: “AI can do both – truth and satire. But at the end of the day, it depends on who pushes the buttons. If a computer makes a joke, do we have to laugh, or do we think about the responsibility?”

The girl laughs: “As long as the AI doesn’t make jokes about math, I’m in!”

The scientist, the priest and the AI expert look at each other and nod. “Maybe,” says the scientist, ”it’s not the AI we need to regulate, but our own ability to laugh – and think.”

And so they part, each in the knowledge that the boundaries between humor and seriousness are often invisible, but significant nonetheless.

Background is this article on artistic freedom and satire in the context of the EU AI Act (so far only in German).

An EU official, a Japanese AI developer, and an ethics professor are sitting together discussing the “Model-Merger.”

The EU official says, “How are we supposed to regulate this AI model if it keeps reinventing itself?”

The Japanese developer smiles and says, “Our AI is like a chameleon, it just adapts.” The ethics professor grins, “And our regulation is like a mirror—always one step behind, but always ready to reflect anew!”

Conclusion: In a world where AI constantly changes the rules, the EU AI Act stays flexible—or at least, it tries to!

The background is this article on the innovation of model merger (so far only in German).

In the canteen, a developer explains the four risk classes of the EU AI law to his colleague.

“So there’s an unacceptable risk, a high risk, a medium risk and a low risk,” he says.

His colleague looks confused and asks: “And where is the risk in explaining these risk classes to our boss?”

The developer grins: “Definitely high risk, especially if he hasn’t had a coffee yet!”

The background is this article on the four risk classes of the EU AI Act.