251–260 of 313 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone gets rich because they provide an affordable useful service to millions then that is definitely progress. They should get rich.
And that is the difference in philosophy between the European and American mindset, and why America actually innovates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer not to have views of my home permanently archived and made available to anyone in the world, unless they can present a reasonable need for it. City planners? Go ahead. Local people for navigation purposes? Go ahead. But some random bloke from another continent? That's clearly too far. Services like Street View should have distance-based friction to preserve privacy. The further you are, the less (or at lower…
This is just NIMBYism, literally. Street View is one of the most amazing technologies ever invented. It brings humanity closer together. No longer do you need to get a visa and get on a plane to see what the world is like in a particular place. You can just look on street view. Throughout history people have given up their lives for that kind of world knowledge. Your inclination to ruin one of humanity's greatest ach…
No. OpSec is not Nimbyism.
> It brings humanity closer together.
Sure, then they show up at your door angry about something they saw online. No thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can debate the details and implementation but EU legislature is, at least in spirit, trying to protect human rights. What does it say about progress that the same laws that protect human rights also stifle innovation?
> What does it say about progress that the same laws that protect human rights also stifle innovation? Claiming that GDPR and the EU AI Act "protect human rights" is very, very far-fetched. How does the training of, say, Claude or GPT-X models, hurt human rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
isnt the eu basically a less federalist version of the usa? how is it then that the usa claims its more free? the individual state members in the EU have more freedom than individual states. someone explain this to me please
> isnt the eu basically a less federalist version of the usa? And what good does it do? The EU cannot speak in a single voice - there is no foreign minister, no defense minister, no whatever minister. Like the EU foreign function: you have a person claiming to be the EU voice, and then you have the foreign ministers of every EU member that can just say whatever they want if what the EU voice says is contrary to their…
Nor can Switzerland. And still it is one of the best country world wide both in term of living and economically.
Distributed federal power like Switzerland trades quick decision making for resilience.
If it might look up 'messy' on the surface, it is in fact a quality. A very valuable one in fact: because it is exactly what prevent fucked up like Trump to happen in the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe Europe can build models that can compete with American ones. 1. In order to build competitive models, you need to offer competitive salaries and equity. Europe has very old and inadequate corporate law virtually everywhere but in UK. European labs cannot attract talent that can build such competitive models with the proper lack of incentives. 2. In order to build competitive models, you need gargantua…
> you need to offer competitive salaries and equity This has always been an argument for "peace time" underperformance of european tech sector but I don't buy this argument for critical national security needs. Historically countries never needed to top the compensation charts to get talent. What they do need is a clear mission and ambition. This is what is missing in Europe
We live in a world where free open weight-models become competitive with frontier model within a year or two.
It is much more lucrative and proficient in term of business to solve real problems affecting the industries / govs with A.I right now than it is to do the arm race with OpenAI or Anthropic.
That is what Mistral is doing and that served them well so far.
The problem is not regulation and never has been. Regulation is a best a minor stone in the shoes of A.I company in Europe.
The problem is somewhere else: People fails to understand that there is no equivalent in the EU to the unlimited money tap of American VCs and private funding. That's just not a thing here, the investor landscape is much more dry.
Company here just cannot stay unprofitable for 25y while surfing on stocks valuation, it does not work like that in the EU.
And as such they cannot compete with behemoth like OpenAI that burn 80B$ a year of cash while staying afloat.
I do believe the approach of Mistral is the right one: Solve actual problems right now even if not Edge and construct on top of that.
Specially if politically speaking, the White House administration continue to give excellent arguments in favor of sovereignty for the incoming decade. It might be the best strategy they have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The founding fathers created a document that was already struggling with modern realities prior to Trump. 250 years is not a particularly impressive amount of time for a country to not fall apart.
The U.S. Constitution is older than the current constitution of every EU member state and has remained continuously in force longer than any of them.
European countries have gone from massive societal changes to massive societal changes (for example from monarchies to republics).
The USA is a new country, and its constitutional rigidity causes a lot of social and political problems that most likely will lead to big changes in the future.
Yes, some countries in Europe remained monarchies for 1500 years or longer. They didn't really have a constituion back then because they were not republics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone gets rich because they provide an affordable useful service to millions then that is definitely progress. They should get rich.
This sounds like PG's essay on the front page (today or yesterday).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The U.S. Constitution is older than the current constitution of every EU member state and has remained continuously in force longer than any of them.
A country that is a thousand years old is obviously going to have to change its constitution. European countries have gone from massive societal changes to massive societal changes (for example from monarchies to republics). The USA is a new country, and its constitutional rigidity causes a lot of social and political problems that most likely will lead to big changes in the future. Yes, some countries in Europe rema…
A constitution, or supreme law, is the aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organization or other type of entity, and commonly determines how that entity is to be governed. [0]
> The USA is a new country, and its constitutional rigidity
and general loudness on the matter of "what is a constitution and why ours is the first and the greatest" has caused much confusion given they have such a short and barely evolved one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What does it say about progress that the same laws that protect human rights also stifle innovation? Claiming that GDPR and the EU AI Act "protect human rights" is very, very far-fetched. How does the training of, say, Claude or GPT-X models, hurt human rights?
We forgot already that getting paid for your work is your right and LLMs were trained on stolen property?
It's not also actually "getting paid for your work" when you're talking about copyright. It's "collecting rent for your property".
Once upon a time, artists and writers got conned into thinking that was a good deal for them, forgoing payment for work in return for a dangling promise of rent extraction. The vast majority of them were wrong.