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

Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 143 posts

Re: Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

#91

Post by xienze »

re-framer wrote: post #58
dcrazy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that you can turn gas plants on and off very quickly, and they can run at any time of day. That makes them excellent suppliers for peak demand. For much of the year, the evening peak occurs when the sun is not shining and the winds have died down, so renewables are not viable.

Renewables can be combined with storage technologies such as batteries, so the syllogism "no generation during Dunkelflaute, but need reliablye generation -> renewables not viable" is too simple. My question is about whether renewables with storage technologies are a viable replacement for the gas power plants.

> My question is about whether renewables with storage technologies are a viable replacement for the gas power plants.

I'm guessing probably not. If it was truly the no-brainer "cheap AND fast AND better" option everyone thinks it is, data centers would be rolling out renewables right now. They're not so dumb that they'd pass up on a superior, cheaper solution just because.

Re: Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

#92

Post by hgoel »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #86
procgen wrote: post #14

Dario is an American patriot who wants the US to win. Don't see this happening.

What is the US "winning" by pissing off their allies?

Who needs allies when you can have a digital god to subjugate those allies into proper vassals?

I know this is an insane statement, but I think much of current American foreign policy can be explained by the belief that their technology makes allies unnecessary.

Re: Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

#93

Post by Y-bar »

logicchains wrote: post #83
vrganj wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Americans expect law to in general work more like a list of checkboxes To me as a European, this is a very low-trust view of lawmaking that assumes a hostile relationship between a government and its people. The European approach is a bit more of a living conversation. In the implementation period there's workshops where you figure out how to best comply in a way that makes sense for your business. There's a lo…

>It works out pretty well in general How can you say that when Europe has completely failed at producing any big, successful tech companies in the past couple decades? China and even India have a lot more staetups-turned-bigtech companies.

Past couple of decades, how many exactly? I mean Apple (48), Microsoft (51), Amazon (32), Nvidia (33), Oracle (49), Adobe (44), Cisco (42), Intel (58), Google (28) aren’t exactly young.

With the exception of Tesla (23) and Meta (22), USA is not brimming with large new tech companies from the past decades either.

I mean King, Spotify, and Klarna are not trillion dollar companies. But at least they are younger than Google.

Re: Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

#94

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

vrganj wrote: post #78
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right! Thanks for the link, I remembered reading that quote but couldn't find it. European regulators don't need hyper-specific definitions, because to them it's entirely normal to tell a company that they must do X or can't do Y even though the rules as written seem to authorize their current course of action Z. All regulatory systems have some informal edge cases, of course. But Americans expect law to in general w…

> But Americans expect law to in general work more like a list of checkboxes To me as a European, this is a very low-trust view of lawmaking that assumes a hostile relationship between a government and its people. The European approach is a bit more of a living conversation. In the implementation period there's workshops where you figure out how to best comply in a way that makes sense for your business. There's a lo…

I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing any of that. It sounds like a reasonable approach and if European citizens like it more power to you.

To me as an American, this is a very high-touch view of lawmaking that sounds like a big problem for companies trying to do new stuff or challenge incumbents. If the meaning of the law is adjusted to fit each individual business case, doesn't that mean the regulator might not let me have all the same adjustments my competitors got? I wouldn't call this a question of hostility as such; even a kind and friendly regulator might think that some of those adjustments depend on doing business as normal, and thus they don't apply to the new abnormal things I'm doing. (Of course, I'm making the stereotypically American assumption that running around disrupting normal business practices is a valuable thing to do.)

Re: Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

#95

Post by sajithdilshan »

impossiblefork wrote: post #90
sajithdilshan wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big question is who is going to fund it? Is it tax payers money? If so how can they guarantee it’s not going to be another waste and corrupted disaster. Also EU is already late to the AI race and by the time the lawmakers starts to think about this, it would be game over

I think the chips alone are 10B minimum. It'd be way bigger than CERN. Provided that the systems work, they can at least be repurposed to other things. If the organizations that are to train public LLMs can't do it, we can rent the system out to Mistral or something. So I think something like 5B, starting with 10B to get started, in public money per year, the chip firms are private, some of the LLM firms will be priv…

The biggest problem with public money funded endeavours is corruption. At the end of the day most of the people would be there for the pay check and even if nothing is delivered after burning billions of euros, nobody would be held accountable.

That’s why I think it’s not going to be successful with public funding. What EU needs is structural unpopular reforms. Reduce taxes so companies and top talent would have an incentive to choose EU over US. Reform employment laws so people can be fired for being pencil pushers and lacking off. Relax privacy and copyright laws so the data can be used to train the model. Completely repel all laws that create a bureaucratic nightmare for startups. Today all these suggestions would be a complete no go in any European country, but that’s the hard reform EU needs like yesterday even to have a chance to compete against US and China.

Re: Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

#96

Post by impossiblefork »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #95
impossiblefork wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the chips alone are 10B minimum. It'd be way bigger than CERN. Provided that the systems work, they can at least be repurposed to other things. If the organizations that are to train public LLMs can't do it, we can rent the system out to Mistral or something. So I think something like 5B, starting with 10B to get started, in public money per year, the chip firms are private, some of the LLM firms will be priv…

The biggest problem with public money funded endeavours is corruption. At the end of the day most of the people would be there for the pay check and even if nothing is delivered after burning billions of euros, nobody would be held accountable. That’s why I think it’s not going to be successful with public funding. What EU needs is structural unpopular reforms. Reduce taxes so companies and top talent would have an i…

Yes, of course people would be working there for the paycheck.

I think there's nothing special about public funding though. The field is so competitive that people will be mad if a competitive model is not achieved, making corruption more damaging to the organizations. There would also be some internal competition. There are after all several EU LLM/AI/etc. firms that would probably try to use this infrastructure.

Re: Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

#97

Post by tough »

impossiblefork wrote: post #96
sajithdilshan wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with public money funded endeavours is corruption. At the end of the day most of the people would be there for the pay check and even if nothing is delivered after burning billions of euros, nobody would be held accountable. That’s why I think it’s not going to be successful with public funding. What EU needs is structural unpopular reforms. Reduce taxes so companies and top talent would have an i…

Yes, of course people would be working there for the paycheck. I think there's nothing special about public funding though. The field is so competitive that people will be mad if a competitive model is not achieved, making corruption more damaging to the organizations. There would also be some internal competition. There are after all several EU LLM/AI/etc. firms that would probably try to use this infrastructure.

I think the bigger issue of public funding and corruption, is that usually these contracts are awarded to "friends" with the purpose of 100% mismanaging and stealing as much of the funds.

Re: Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

#99

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Y-bar wrote: post #93
logicchains wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It works out pretty well in general How can you say that when Europe has completely failed at producing any big, successful tech companies in the past couple decades? China and even India have a lot more staetups-turned-bigtech companies.

Past couple of decades, how many exactly? I mean Apple (48), Microsoft (51), Amazon (32), Nvidia (33), Oracle (49), Adobe (44), Cisco (42), Intel (58), Google (28) aren’t exactly young. With the exception of Tesla (23) and Meta (22), USA is not brimming with large new tech companies from the past decades either. I mean King, Spotify, and Klarna are not trillion dollar companies. But at least they are younger than Goo…

American companies at around Spotify's market cap include Palantir (23), CrowdStrike (15), AppLovin (14), Uber (17), ServiceNow (22), Robinhood (13), AirBNB (18), Snowflake (13).

Re: Austria Lobbies EU to Host Anthropic After US Access Curbs

#100

Post by vrganj »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #94
vrganj wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Americans expect law to in general work more like a list of checkboxes To me as a European, this is a very low-trust view of lawmaking that assumes a hostile relationship between a government and its people. The European approach is a bit more of a living conversation. In the implementation period there's workshops where you figure out how to best comply in a way that makes sense for your business. There's a lo…

I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing any of that. It sounds like a reasonable approach and if European citizens like it more power to you. To me as an American, this is a very high-touch view of lawmaking that sounds like a big problem for companies trying to do new stuff or challenge incumbents. If the meaning of the law is adjusted to fit each individual business case, doesn't that mean the regulator might no…

First of all, I wanted to thank you for the constructive and interesting exchange of views - I find that too often conversations on EU regulations on HN devolve into caricatures and trolling, its been nice to have a substantial conversation with you.

Ironically, I have the opposite read on the same situation: "Just do what the law wants from you" seems like a pretty straightforward thing that even the smallest startup can follow.

In the case of GDPR that would be roughly "don't store any personal data you don't strictly need for the feature, ask for consent, delete data when asked".

Checkbox-lawyering on the other hand requires just that, lawyers. Expensive ones. Ideally entire legal departments.

If you're a huge incumbent, you can afford that. Meta finds the neatest little ways to technically comply without actually doing what the lawmakers wanted. The little startup? No chance.

The other concern is addressed by the judicial system. If a competitor got some exception you didn't get, that's your correction mechanism. The CJEU exists precisely to ensure consistent application across member states and cases. The purpose is the same for everyone; the implementation differs based on context, but the purpose doesn't change.

Post reply on HN