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

231–240 of 289 posts

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

#231

Post by mft_ »

varjag wrote: post #182
mft_ wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The snarky point of explosions wasn't mine, the poster I replied to brought it up. The rest of your points is really one item, launch vehicles. It's where the USA clearly has the lead (above everyone else, not just ESA in particular). The question was whether the EU can successfully manage complex projects and it clearly can, suggesting otherwise is delirious.

I'm not following you.

The previous poster was basically supportive of SpaceX, talked about innovation, and didn't mention explosions at all. You wrote "If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really." I interpreted this as a snarky reference to the fact the lots of SpaceX rockets have blown up - mostly due to their different approach to development.

The comment implying that SpaceX isn't innovative is what I was replying to - that looking at the work that SpaceX does (and not the whole pantheon of other space-related work it's not involved in) it's demonstrably innovative in a way that ESA just isn't (e.g. with Ariane).

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

#232

Post by mft_ »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #202
mft_ wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. The space shuttle solid boosters were reusable, the only part of the space shuttle program that wasn't, was the big orange tank. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_B...

Eh, I knew someone was going to nit-pick this point, which was why I wrote "first meaningful fully-reusable first stage rocket" but obviously this wasn't enough. :)

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

#233

Post by varjag »

mft_ wrote: post #231
varjag wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The snarky point of explosions wasn't mine, the poster I replied to brought it up. The rest of your points is really one item, launch vehicles. It's where the USA clearly has the lead (above everyone else, not just ESA in particular). The question was whether the EU can successfully manage complex projects and it clearly can, suggesting otherwise is delirious.

I'm not following you. The previous poster was basically supportive of SpaceX, talked about innovation, and didn't mention explosions at all. You wrote "If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really." I interpreted this as a snarky reference to the fact the lots of SpaceX rockets have blown up - mostly due to their different approach to development. The…

The poster I replied to brought up Ariane 5 crash as the example of ESA dysfunction while being very positive about SpaceX. SpaceX had lost plenty launch vehicles both in testing and with live payloads, just ask Zuckerberg. I pointed out the contradiction there.

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

#234

Post by lyu07282 »

closewith wrote: post #174
varjag wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also in Germany, their leading solar energy technology became unprofitable in the global market and was sold to China (see what happened to Q-Cells [1]). The EU can publicly finance research all they want, but if the results of which gets profited by private interests of any nationality not necessarily EU countries how does that help the EU catch up?

But this does seem different since they plan on building open-source models which would benefit everyone equally (and no one in particular), it would just level the playing field more I guess?

I think this and things like MCP [2] are fantastic, they would make the LLM just one interchangeable piece you can buy from anywhere or host yourself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qcells

[2] https://modelcontextprotocol.io/introduction

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

#235

Post by glooglork »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #210
glooglork wrote: post #70

Even without the problem of insufficient financing, you probably need to bend some rules to be at the top of LLM game (not just how you collect the training data, we all sort of forgot that Altman was kicked out of OpenAI because the board thought he was prioritizing features over security). With all the regulations and paperwork around EU projects, I can't really see them competing against private sector.

The losers in the "rule bending" are humans, whose creative works are turned into weights, whose livelihoods are diminished by indiscriminate greed. I'm all for the advancement of AI, but not at the cost of humility and compassion for those enabling the models to be built. Model building is already a community project, you just weren't asked if you wanted to contribute. You just did. Without compensation. "rule bendi…

Data is getting scraped, models are being built, nobody is really going to stop that now.

You may wish it wasn't like that (not you, but all of us), but there's no way China or USA block their companies in development of key technology like this, and I think we (EU countries) should act in the same way.

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

#236

Post by varjag »

graemep wrote: post #192
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.

> Europe runs its space programme Different Europe. The ESA is is not an EU agency so it runs by its own rules, its members include several non-EU countries, it has a non-European "cooperating state" and its funding is direct from member states. https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Corporate_news/Member_States_Co...

Which are the non-member states still? Is that post Brexit UK and Norway (the EEA member)?

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

#237

Post by throwawayffffas »

mft_ wrote: post #232
throwawayffffas wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The space shuttle solid boosters were reusable, the only part of the space shuttle program that wasn't, was the big orange tank. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_B...

Eh, I knew someone was going to nit-pick this point, which was why I wrote "first meaningful fully-reusable first stage rocket" but obviously this wasn't enough. :)

I too, was certain there would be a "he said meaningful" follow up. ;)

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

#238

Post by simion314 »

jampekka wrote: post #10
simion314 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a European, that's practically an oxymoron. The more one limits oneself to legally clean data, the worse the models will be. Train an LLM with text books and other legal books, you do not need to train it on pop culture to make it intelligent. For face generations you might need to be more creative, you should not need milions of images stolen from social media to train your model. But makes sense that tech giant…

> Train an LLM with text books and other legal books Without licenses to the books, they are just as illegal (and maybe even moreso) than web content.

>Without licenses to the books, they are just as illegal (and maybe even moreso) than web content.

There are books that are out of copyright, and also free books.

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

#239

Post by askonomm »

MR4D wrote: post #203
askonomm wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, to be successful you need to be able to break the law and lobby the government? That is indeed the USA mindset, or should I say United Corporations of America? I'm happy EU is not USA.

That’s absolutely asinine and not at all what I said. The EU over regulates things like tech and that why they won’t be successful at have an AI tech scene. Over time, anyone good will migrate to the US or China where they can work faster and not have as many rules to deal with. A simple example is hiring and firing people - it’s much easier to make personnel changes in the US than Europe. As a result, US companies c…

Yes, US has at-will firing, and healthcare tied to the employer, and so forth. Basically the US has made sure that the corporations have all the power, and the people have none of it. Does this make it easier to make companies? Well of course it does, just like slave trade made it easier to collect crops.

Unlike the US however, we in EU really like having basic human rights - such as mandatory minimum vacation time, healthcare that won't immediately disappear if you lose your job, or depend on the job, as well as not getting fired without cause, and without multiple warnings beforehand.

If the result of this means that we won't be successful in the AI tech scene, or that all the Musk-like slave owners migrate to US or China where they can abuse people however much they like, I'm pretty sure Europeans are not going to shed a tear over that.

I realize more and more that the main difference between Americans and Europeans is that Americans think from the perspective of a corporation, whereas Europeans think from the perspective of themselves, as human beings. We're not compatible, clearly, so there's no need to force us to be the same.

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

#240

Post by CrimsonRain »

input_sh wrote: post #114
CrimsonRain wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All talk. No show. That's EU. I'll believe it works after they finally have one success

Would you consider for example Firefox' completely-local translations a success? Directly funded by Horizon, made by a consortium of 4 European universities, now a part of Firefox?

Depends on how much money has been spent.

Also money will be better spent with one common language instead of wasting so much time, resources and inconveniencing people with so many languages in this area.

Post reply on HN