At first, we missed the internet. Because of way too much regulation.
Then we found ourselves using only US software and digital services.
What did we do? We created more regulation. Way more regulation. Burying all hope Europe could ever get a foot in the door of the internet.
Now we are about to miss AI.
OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Tesla, NVIDIA .. all AI players are in the US again.
I don't think more governmental intervention is the right way.
In fact, I think it is counterproductive.
What should we do?
Well, it's a long process. We would have to get to a mindset that gives small entrepreneurs more freedom. Less bureaucracy and less regulation, step by step. I don't think it will happen. The reaction in Europe is always "more regulation". The thought of removing some regulation is probably terrifying to our leaders.
I think this has a lot more to do with the US having a larger english speaking population under one legal framework. All of the capital goes here first since it has the most upside and makes it easier to expand to other english speaking countries.
I'm Polish and would never build a tech business targeting the Polish market first over the US, and it has nothing to do with regulations getting in my way.
Building ChatGPT or Google for EU citizens is a lot harder than doing it for English speakers.
Also most of the leading figures in AI are from Europe or Asia but followed the money to the US.
EDIT 3: Americans underestimate the value of being surrounded by oceans instead of Russia and Germany, which they end up attributing to their ingenuity or libertarian leaning version of capitalism.
I believe you are driving the conversation off the course here.
> We would have to get to a mindset that gives small entrepreneurs more freedom. Less bureaucracy and less regulation, step by step.
Can you explain me, how the small entrepreneurs will get their hand on billions to train 175B models which we have now and the next ones wich will have order of magnitude or even 3 orders of magnitude more weights???
You can't do this without collaboration and lot, lot of money. This requires huge infrastructure for the training, the fine tuning and incremental training. BLOOM is one of the examples that was made using your taxes, but it lacks RLHF and RLMF. The later two require dedication and dedicated work on the models.
And this is what the CENRN's petition is about. I do not give less sht about regulations at this point, as I'm really worrying about big corps having a sole control and huge advantage on the technologies of the paradigm shift.
That is why such Open Source initiatives must be perused.
If you live in Europe vote for the CENR petition now.
Don't know about regulation, but the development of the internet was initially subsidised by the US government [1]. AI research has also been subsidised in the past. The famous MNIST handwriting dataset being a good example here [2].
I remember Demis Hassabis(Deepmind founder) said in some podcast that they had lot of troubles getting decent funding in Europe. In general it seems Europe has much less appetite for funding private research groups than US, which I think it boils down directly or indirectly to regulations.
This. The EU prides itself in being the 'regulatory superpower'.
Now the EU gets GDPR, while the US gets GPT-4. I cannot think of any influential EU AI companies, except for DeepL. While even the UK has two (Deepmind, Stability). I cannot see a more damning indictment of EU's tech policy than this.
But this seems to be the future that Europeans want, aging, resentful of changes, yet somehow mass importing immigrants to serve the pensioners. Italy now has 50% GDP per capita compared to the US, I think it'll end up being 33% by 2050.
A pretty large majority (79%) of Americans are concerned about how their data is being used by companies. 75% would like some kind of regulation on what companies can do with their data [0]. The fact that the US government is so unwilling/unable to do anything despite such popular support is an indictment of the idea that Americans are better off just because the economy is doing well.
The problem with comparing economies is that something which is a net positive for GDP can still be a net negative for most of the actual people living under that economy. The resource curse of petro states is a classic example, but in the US one could look at synthetic opioids, casinos, strip mining, or even social media. More money is moving but are most people better off? The US (economy) is the richest it's ever been but despite this there seems to be a rising tide of pessimism, unafordability, and distrust of institutions.
I'm absolutely in favor of the idea of open source AI, providing libre/free/open source code, libre/free/open source data and providing all other relevant digital artifacts under a libre/free license but I'm nervous about believing in some other organization that claims to be open but then rescinding their offer.
I think this was precisely OpenAI's charter when it started [0] and now they've positioned themselves as paternalistic protectors, claiming to have peoples best interest at heart when limiting access the tools they've created. Even hugging face has weird licensing for many (most?) of their models [1].
My apologies, but I don't trust LAION. I guess I would trust it more if they talked about which licenses they specifically would support, which they wouldn't and what the repercussions of violating their charter would be.
I mostly use the OpenAI APIs out of some laziness on my part: super easy to integrate with my code, inexpensive, large 3rd party dev community.
All that said, I love what Hugging Face is doing with open models and software. I made a note to check out their licensing however, based in your comment.
I support this, and even more so I believe this is necessary if we believe that academia should exist as a place for researchers to do work not motivated by profits. So many AI researchers have moved to work at big tech simply because the resources required for cutting edge ML are so vast.
Having a giant collaborative project would make it much easier for universities to retain professors, attract PhDs/Post-docs, etc. They could do work that aims to benefit society as a whole, instead of just happening to benefit society when it's a lucky side effect of benefiting stockholders.
This petition is an excellent idea. We as humanity need to get closer to the edge if not ahead of AI Development to strive to ensure that a) the wealth and benefits can be generated for societies b) closed and unaccountable parties are not the sole custodians of such a powerful force.
The idea of CERN has a lot of merit because of CERN's success as a multi-national institution. The model will need to be evolved for AI but that's why we need to start now.
This is the start of a new phenomenon for our societies; not the end. It's better for its impact to be managed by society as a whole.
On the contrary, it's totally unnecessary and the same level of effort will come about naturally from market and industry/academic incentives. Cern was needed because nobody would spend the money on high energy physics otherwise.
They can apply for a research grant, the EU does give a lot.
But if it goes the way of the Human Brain Project, it will alter course next year and become 100 small projects
Besides, our laws make it virtually impossible to train these models without getting sued. Not to talk about their output, a defamation lawsuit magnet.
except CERN actually does a lot of things backwards in terms of technology (partly due to our unique needs for hardware, but absolutely no excuse for software).
If what CERN is doing has even the remotest real-world application, CERN would have looked much less world-leading than it is today. European treaty is what made CERN viable -- because otherwise it's very hard to fund ultra long-term, almost no return projects.
AI is the opposite of that and you probably don't want to have a CERN: plenty of $ flowing into AI project without government intervention && you don't want the slowness of CERN.
Tech firms are throwing billions at this at the moment, and will continue to do so for a long time. As soon as faster tech emerges, they’ll upgrade - they don’t need to justify it to the public, and justification to shareholders is pretty easy. “We’re trying to secure our position at the forefront of a competitive market”.
Would a publicly funded project be able to keep up with that? Or would there be a big upfront cost, only to find that their technology is in the Stone Age five years from now?
With CERN it makes a lot of sense. There isn’t a vast market out there for it to compete with - just a few organisations that they collaborate and “compete” with. But trying to join the big spenders seems risky.
For Europe I could see a bigger group of companies, schools and researchers working towards open models with funding.
This would allow EU companies to be competitive with the US while not duplicating effort, more eyes on the problem too.
Maybe alignment work could be a goal, since the driver is not profit at any cost this time.
Readit News
At first, we missed the internet. Because of way too much regulation.
Then we found ourselves using only US software and digital services.
What did we do? We created more regulation. Way more regulation. Burying all hope Europe could ever get a foot in the door of the internet.
Now we are about to miss AI.
OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Tesla, NVIDIA .. all AI players are in the US again.
I don't think more governmental intervention is the right way.
In fact, I think it is counterproductive.
What should we do?
Well, it's a long process. We would have to get to a mindset that gives small entrepreneurs more freedom. Less bureaucracy and less regulation, step by step. I don't think it will happen. The reaction in Europe is always "more regulation". The thought of removing some regulation is probably terrifying to our leaders.
I'm Polish and would never build a tech business targeting the Polish market first over the US, and it has nothing to do with regulations getting in my way.
Building ChatGPT or Google for EU citizens is a lot harder than doing it for English speakers.
Also most of the leading figures in AI are from Europe or Asia but followed the money to the US.
EDIT 3: Americans underestimate the value of being surrounded by oceans instead of Russia and Germany, which they end up attributing to their ingenuity or libertarian leaning version of capitalism.
Dead Comment
> We would have to get to a mindset that gives small entrepreneurs more freedom. Less bureaucracy and less regulation, step by step.
Can you explain me, how the small entrepreneurs will get their hand on billions to train 175B models which we have now and the next ones wich will have order of magnitude or even 3 orders of magnitude more weights???
You can't do this without collaboration and lot, lot of money. This requires huge infrastructure for the training, the fine tuning and incremental training. BLOOM is one of the examples that was made using your taxes, but it lacks RLHF and RLMF. The later two require dedication and dedicated work on the models.
And this is what the CENRN's petition is about. I do not give less sht about regulations at this point, as I'm really worrying about big corps having a sole control and huge advantage on the technologies of the paradigm shift.
That is why such Open Source initiatives must be perused.
If you live in Europe vote for the CENR petition now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
[2] https://www.nist.gov/srd/nist-special-database-19
I remember Demis Hassabis(Deepmind founder) said in some podcast that they had lot of troubles getting decent funding in Europe. In general it seems Europe has much less appetite for funding private research groups than US, which I think it boils down directly or indirectly to regulations.
Now the EU gets GDPR, while the US gets GPT-4. I cannot think of any influential EU AI companies, except for DeepL. While even the UK has two (Deepmind, Stability). I cannot see a more damning indictment of EU's tech policy than this.
But this seems to be the future that Europeans want, aging, resentful of changes, yet somehow mass importing immigrants to serve the pensioners. Italy now has 50% GDP per capita compared to the US, I think it'll end up being 33% by 2050.
The problem with comparing economies is that something which is a net positive for GDP can still be a net negative for most of the actual people living under that economy. The resource curse of petro states is a classic example, but in the US one could look at synthetic opioids, casinos, strip mining, or even social media. More money is moving but are most people better off? The US (economy) is the richest it's ever been but despite this there seems to be a rising tide of pessimism, unafordability, and distrust of institutions.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/15/key-takeawa...
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
I think this was precisely OpenAI's charter when it started [0] and now they've positioned themselves as paternalistic protectors, claiming to have peoples best interest at heart when limiting access the tools they've created. Even hugging face has weird licensing for many (most?) of their models [1].
My apologies, but I don't trust LAION. I guess I would trust it more if they talked about which licenses they specifically would support, which they wouldn't and what the repercussions of violating their charter would be.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160220093339/https://openai.co...
[1] https://huggingface.co/models?sort=downloads
All that said, I love what Hugging Face is doing with open models and software. I made a note to check out their licensing however, based in your comment.
Having a giant collaborative project would make it much easier for universities to retain professors, attract PhDs/Post-docs, etc. They could do work that aims to benefit society as a whole, instead of just happening to benefit society when it's a lucky side effect of benefiting stockholders.
The idea of CERN has a lot of merit because of CERN's success as a multi-national institution. The model will need to be evolved for AI but that's why we need to start now.
This is the start of a new phenomenon for our societies; not the end. It's better for its impact to be managed by society as a whole.
But if it goes the way of the Human Brain Project, it will alter course next year and become 100 small projects
Besides, our laws make it virtually impossible to train these models without getting sued. Not to talk about their output, a defamation lawsuit magnet.
EU is pretty much locked out of the future of AI
If what CERN is doing has even the remotest real-world application, CERN would have looked much less world-leading than it is today. European treaty is what made CERN viable -- because otherwise it's very hard to fund ultra long-term, almost no return projects.
AI is the opposite of that and you probably don't want to have a CERN: plenty of $ flowing into AI project without government intervention && you don't want the slowness of CERN.
Tech firms are throwing billions at this at the moment, and will continue to do so for a long time. As soon as faster tech emerges, they’ll upgrade - they don’t need to justify it to the public, and justification to shareholders is pretty easy. “We’re trying to secure our position at the forefront of a competitive market”.
Would a publicly funded project be able to keep up with that? Or would there be a big upfront cost, only to find that their technology is in the Stone Age five years from now?
With CERN it makes a lot of sense. There isn’t a vast market out there for it to compete with - just a few organisations that they collaborate and “compete” with. But trying to join the big spenders seems risky.
What am I missing?
For Europe I could see a bigger group of companies, schools and researchers working towards open models with funding. This would allow EU companies to be competitive with the US while not duplicating effort, more eyes on the problem too. Maybe alignment work could be a goal, since the driver is not profit at any cost this time.