> EU didn't go into an uncontrolled spree investing every company that had .com in its name and ruined thousands of lives and wasted billions of dollars. This is the thing that so many Americans in tech don't seem to understand. VC Twitter is full of smugposting about how the US has "$5 trillion market-cap of startups" and the EU doesn't. And what they miss is that the EU doesn't want Silicon Valley. It doesn't want…
AAPL's profit is roughly equivalent to the GDP of Slovakia.
Before you can innovate you need to level the playing field.
Sure at the moment the amount of inner European Innovation in digital technologies is low, but local companies have to fight against foreign behemoths that simply disregard local regulations, or just buy the likes of Luxemburg or Ireland to get their own special law zones inside the single market.
Let the big US companies leave, the vacuum left behind will foster competition and local solutions.
Unfortunately true, but one can also think that it’s a consequence and not the root cause. Why VC should invest if the environment isn’t supportive? A vicious circle :)
to give a different perspective, why are VC's somehow the cause of "tech industry"? this seems like a very US perspective on tech in general. Also, VC's in the US have another large advantage. Very, very cheap money because the status of the US dollar as a reserve currency compared to the euro and other currencies.
The VCs ask you to relocate to the bay area if you want money. People go where the money is.
You can combat bias in a team of people, but in LLM you may not even know it exists.
of course you can know it exists. you just need to observe inputs and outputs and compare with precious non LLM ways.
You do not understand how HR works then. They are not LLM researchers and just apply the available toolkit, e.g. organizing regular training for hiring managers. When they buy AI-driven solution from a third party, they have no tools neither to detect if it’s just a statistical fluctuation or there’s a bias they need to find a workaround for, nor to act on this information in a cost-efficient way. Most likely they won‘t even have enough data to reach any statistical significance. The vendor in theory could do it, but most of them are startups now and they do not have diversity in their OKRs, at least not now. It’s not the UVP of their product.
It's not about flexing, it's about the diminishing importance of EU in the world. It doesn't matter if EU still has a better GDP PPP if India ends up with a bigger GDP overall as you are only as important as you have in the bank internationally. Competing for resources would then flip in favor of India; EU burning bridges with Russia sending it to China's orbit will likely accelerate the process as well.
Of course the influence of the EU will diminish over time, because they are currently very strong. It would be very weird if the Asian countries wouldn’t catch up, which automatically lets the EU have a smaller proportion of global trade. Guess what, at some point, India and china will also overtake the US. Is that shocking to you? That’s just what happens when absolutely massive countries catch up to everyone else.
US has fewer inhabitants than EU (342M vs 449M) yet keeps up with China economically in absolute terms.
You can combat bias in a team of people, but in LLM you may not even know it exists.
Isn't not knowing that bias exists just the same problem that the average HR department has? You solve that by educating people about biases. If anything that should be easier with LLMs because you're not asking people to alter their sense of self (" I wouldn't do that!"), you're just informing them of technical limitations.
I don’t understand your argument. The whole purpose of AI-driven recruitment is to reduce human effort by doing some work for them. If AI due to existing bias reduces diversity in your pool of candidates, what can you do with it? You either do not notice the bias and just think that those people are indeed the best fit, you willingly accept the bias („But it reduces our hiring costs! We deal with diversity later, when this technology matures!“), or you go to see the unfiltered stream and put such an amount of work into it that makes AI useless. HR departments are not the people who will build their own solution, they will buy it from a third party and they won’t have control over or the budget for the fine-tuning.
You can combat bias in a team of people, but in LLM you may not even know it exists.
How can you combat bias in a team of humans if humans are susceptible to bias? How do you even know what neutral is if it's not a physically measurable quantity?
It‘s 2024. There are decades or research with a lot of data, there exist best practices and products that help combating the bias. The toolkit available to HRs is rich and there’s plenty of things that work. E.g. I have absolutely no problem hiring women in tech roles, because I simply adjusted my process. I heard complaints from other engineering leaders that they want to increase diversity but struggle to find candidates: they do not realize that they have bias in job descriptions, they apply same screening criteria and do the post-interview evaluation the same way regardless of candidate gender or background. Many people can do the job, but they communicate it differently and it is important to account for that when you see the CV or talk to them.
This is the first product miss. And I don't know where Apple goes from here. Others will also leapfrog them is my instinct. Basically they are too big now and startups have a chance of beating both Google and Apple.
Nah, the first iPhone was too expensive, slow, and limited in capabilities (no App Store). They quickly iterated to improve on all of that. The first watch also kind of sucked. The initial iPod wasn’t a blockbuster, either - didn’t work well on Windows, required FireWire. I’m sure there are other initial misses. I think there’s something there with Vision Pro, they just need to iterate and get the cost down.
Are you really saying the original iPhone was a "product miss"???