EU AI Act got hijacked by huge corpo with last minute changed with moved it from "could probably work" to "catastrophe".

Even at 2 December 2027 it might be intentionally not enforced at all due to that for a while, through I think the goal is currently to amend it until then.

> that LLMs will be excluded from being used in high-risk AI use cases

no, it won't I can guarantee you this. At best they will get additional restrictions over time, as things go wrong. Anyone who could make this happen has way too much interest to not make it happen. (Most/All? EU country legal systems are overloaded to a point of not working correctly anymore, and have been before AI generated law suites and other AI nonsense started. I won't go into detail but many believe AI assistance (for certain tasks, always with a human doing any final decisions) is the only way to get out of this mess).

> standards are published yet

or exist,

like seriously this isn't a case of there being non public WIP standards which will pin all the nitty bitty details down, but cases of state agencies (and in last instance judges) having to decide if a specific standard (or implementation) is sufficient or not.

but also to some degree it shouldn't be tightly coupled to tech standards as there are often many ways to implement the things the law requires and accepting only one is undesirable (and likely wouldn't legally hold up). But having tech standards which are a "guaranteed to be enough if you comply with" (but not the only valid way) would have been preferable, bringing us to the next point

> have absolutely no idea how they will ensure compliance

nor do they know, the original non big corpo hijacked version had exceptions for most companies affected now. So it would only have affected a handful of huge companies, which have many of the things required already in place, in some form or another. Most likely this would have played out as this companies presenting how their measurements are "sufficient" and the agencies then evaluating it and potentially requiring some changes, going back and force over a longer duration leading to documented cases of rough technical standards about "what is sufficient" they then can pass to other organizations in the future. But now the law affects not just a handful of companies but like thousands, if not tens of thousands. Many not stuffed in a way where such a process could work, or even do the necessary documentation to show "compliance"...

So from a practicability POV, if enforced starting 2027, it currently excludes close to _any_ (meaningful) use of AI, down to a trivial linear regression or similar. Including any "old school ML/AI" any Bank uses for risk assessment.

Banking stopping running in December and there not being any (meaningfull) AI startups or adoption at all is not something anyone (in power in any state organ) wants to see, so guess how much it will be enforced ;)

And as mentioned the chance of AI as technology being excluded "in general" is close to none. Maybe specific usages could be excluded (and/or are already excluded) but thats it.

Oh and as a bonus a malicious reading of f+g remove any proper privacy protections for any AI usage in high risk context, where it is often most relevant... (a more sane reading allow it, with ... tricks).