Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

openeurollm.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 289 posts

Re: Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

#171

Post by varjag »

Kuinox wrote: post #167
varjag wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe runs its space programme in this way and so far it has pretty good track record. There are more ways to build stuff than the worship of personality.

I don't think Ariane have a "pretty good track record". Most expensive bug of all time that crashed a whole rocket, because of outdated and wrong software engineering practice. They dont innovate, looked down on SpaceX, they have bet against Falcon, and lost the bet. Now they are betting against the Starship. > Honestly, I don’t think Starship will be a game-changer or a real competitor -- ESA chief 2024 https://spac…

If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really.

The EU had committed to a number of deep space and scientific instrument programmes spanning decades and seen them through to success. It operates its own GNSS constellation. It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.

Re: Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

#173

Post by closewith »

varjag wrote: post #171
Kuinox wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Ariane have a "pretty good track record". Most expensive bug of all time that crashed a whole rocket, because of outdated and wrong software engineering practice. They dont innovate, looked down on SpaceX, they have bet against Falcon, and lost the bet. Now they are betting against the Starship. > Honestly, I don’t think Starship will be a game-changer or a real competitor -- ESA chief 2024 https://spac…

If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really. The EU had committed to a number of deep space and scientific instrument programmes spanning decades and seen them through to success. It operates its own GNSS constellation. It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.

> It operates its own GNSS constellation.

Only 33 years later and mostly launched on Russian rockets, behind GLONASS and BeiDou.

> It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.

In what respect? Space? Certainly not, far behind the US and Russia and questionably competitive with China.

Economically? Behind US and China.

R&D? Behind US and China.

Manufacturing? Behind US and China.

You are refusing to recognise reality.

Re: Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

#174

Post by closewith »

varjag wrote: post #155
ShareTheVista wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell us about a project like this that worked?

The Large Hadron Collider clearly works and is infinitely more complex than yet another language model.

The LHC is comparably complex to LLMs and CERN is a cautionary tale. The web was invented there and yet the vast majority of the subsequent innovation and economic benefit coalesced in the US because the European countries were culturally unable to capitalise on it.

Re: Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

#175

Post by closewith »

yread wrote: post #166
isoprophlex wrote: post #57

I'm HIGHLY sceptical. The academics will love it, because they get money. But look at that list of parties involved. More than twenty parties supplying people; none of them will have this initiative on the top of their list of loyalties and priorities. Meaning, everyone will talk, noone will take charge, some millions change hands and we continue with business as usual. Instead this should have been a single new non-…

I'm involved with IMI-BIGPICTURE, a similarly sized EU initiative (~70M funding). It's not that bad. Things will take a while to start moving but as long as all the players stay on the same page shit will get done. 10x slower than with a small team but some things can't be done in small teams

> The project aims to create a repository of digital copies of around 3 million slides covering a range of disease areas. This repository will then be used to develop artificial intelligence tools that could aid in the analysis of slides.

€70 MM to get the digital copies of 3 million slides. Speaks for itself.

Re: Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

#176

Post by ngcazz »

bayindirh wrote: post #67
isoprophlex wrote: post #57

I'm HIGHLY sceptical. The academics will love it, because they get money. But look at that list of parties involved. More than twenty parties supplying people; none of them will have this initiative on the top of their list of loyalties and priorities. Meaning, everyone will talk, noone will take charge, some millions change hands and we continue with business as usual. Instead this should have been a single new non-…

I can see that you're unfamiliar with how EU grants and how these project collections work, but I don't have much time to address this with great detail. As a person who's in this type of projects for a long time, what I can say is "it works", because people do not compete with each other, but will build it together. What I can say is, if they have came this far, there's already plans about what to do, and how to do,…

Having worked on an FP7 programme myself and having a family member involved in project audits, I’d say some skepticism is warranted—particularly regarding the incentives that attract private sector partners and the talent they actually allocate once funds are secured.

Funding is tied to employee qualifications and effectively subsidises salaries, which creates room for misalignment. No-shows of allocated employees were not uncommon, since a company willing to accept lower-quality deliverables can assign junior employees to do the work at a fraction of the cost, while the salary difference for their PhDs simply becomes added margin.

Re: Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

#177

Post by mft_ »

varjag wrote: post #171
Kuinox wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Ariane have a "pretty good track record". Most expensive bug of all time that crashed a whole rocket, because of outdated and wrong software engineering practice. They dont innovate, looked down on SpaceX, they have bet against Falcon, and lost the bet. Now they are betting against the Starship. > Honestly, I don’t think Starship will be a game-changer or a real competitor -- ESA chief 2024 https://spac…

If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really. The EU had committed to a number of deep space and scientific instrument programmes spanning decades and seen them through to success. It operates its own GNSS constellation. It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.

I suspect the previous poster's metric of innovation was more along the lines of:

* developing the first meaningful fully-reusable first stage rocket, and continuing to develop it to the extent that no other launch systems are even in the same ballpark as regards cost, cadence, or mass to orbit

* developing, and continuing to develop, the only full-flow staged combustion rocket engine

* developing, and continuing to develop, a novel, completely-reusable, next-generation very-heavy-lift platform, before any of the competition have even caught with their previous generation

* (to your snarky point about explosions) demonstrating that moving fast, evolving designs quickly, and not being afraid to (be seen to) fail (in the short term, in the court of public opinion, etc.) in the pursuit of success is much better than the traditional conservative approach (e.g. NASA, Blue Origin, etc.)

I'm well aware that giving credit to anything related to Musk is increasingly difficult for some people at the moment, but let's give credit where it's due to SpaceX and its engineers.

Re: Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

#178

Post by Lionga »

bayindirh wrote: post #88
closewith wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can see that you're unfamiliar with how EU grants and how these project collections work, but I don't have much time to address this with great detail. This is a take that can only come from someone who is dependent on Horizon, because I don't think any independent observer could look at Horizon projects and say they just work.

> This is a take that can only come from someone who is dependent on Horizon. No, I'm not dependent on Horizon Programme. I just look at what we did, the outcomes, and talk from that point. Maybe our sphere is one of the ones which deliver. I can't see the whole thing, it's too big to observe. Even if we're in the 5% which delivers, which is same with the startup scene, which is loudly applauded because it's an incre…

What did you actually deliver in which project? Not really expecting a real answer here as far as I have seen all Horizon Programms are just trash that has no commercial use.

Re: Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

#179

Post by varjag »

closewith wrote: post #173
varjag wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really. The EU had committed to a number of deep space and scientific instrument programmes spanning decades and seen them through to success. It operates its own GNSS constellation. It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.

> It operates its own GNSS constellation. Only 33 years later and mostly launched on Russian rockets, behind GLONASS and BeiDou. > It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous. In what respect? Space? Certainly not, far behind the US and Russia and questionably competitive with China. Economically? Behind US and China. R&D? Behind US and China. Manufacturing? Behind US and China. You are refusing to…

Russia had its last deep space mission (failed) in 1996. GLONASS did not operate until 2005.

Chinese contributions to scientific space missions had been very modest although am sure they may catch up later.

NASA has 3x the budget of ESA. The question was if the EU method of doing project works and it does in very unambiguous manner.

Re: Open Euro LLM: Open LLMs for Transparent AI in Europe

#180

Post by throwaway473825 »

closewith wrote: post #173
varjag wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really. The EU had committed to a number of deep space and scientific instrument programmes spanning decades and seen them through to success. It operates its own GNSS constellation. It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.

> It operates its own GNSS constellation. Only 33 years later and mostly launched on Russian rockets, behind GLONASS and BeiDou. > It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous. In what respect? Space? Certainly not, far behind the US and Russia and questionably competitive with China. Economically? Behind US and China. R&D? Behind US and China. Manufacturing? Behind US and China. You are refusing to…

Not all satellite systems are equal:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-20/russia-s-...

>The US constellation isn’t as accurate as the newer networks, said Roberts, the Sydney-based professor. “It used to be GPS was out in front,” he said. Now, though, the EU’s Galileo is in the lead, with China’s BeiDou close behind, he said.

It's basically Galileo > BeiDou > GPS >>> GLONASS.

Post reply on HN