The issue is a lot of EU legislation becomes powerless, as it's up to individual nations to implement rulings or define exceptions.
And in plenty of cases, these exceptions tend to be broad and equally rife to lobbying like those you'd see in the US.
And there is A LOT of lobbying happening at the nation state level (the level that actually matters) to carve out exceptions.
I already pointed this out with spyware, and there's no reason to presume the exact same thing won't happen with weaponizing AI/ML tooling.
> A half assed effort is worse than no effort, because a half assed attempt can easily be weaponized
This part I'm not following. I don't see the EU effort as half-assed so much as just lacking teeth due to realpolitik. That's unfortunate but still a step in the right direction. What would you propose as an alternative? If you're just saying "we're fucked" that's a point of view, but it doesn't explain how the current attempts will be weaponized. All else being equal, I'd argue that having these issues in the global discussion is better than not. If they're not then how do they get addressed?
Like every other form of tech regulation done by the EU, it's all bark but no bite because politicians of individual countries have more power than MEPs.
What's to stop Fidesz, PiS (if they return to power), etc from carving out broad exceptions for their own Interior Ministries? They've already done this with spyware like Pegasus.
Instead of techno-feudalism, it's basically techno-paternalism which is essentially the same thing. In both cases, individual agency is being limited by someone else.