Google gives me Xerox PARC vibes wrt AI. Got to the insights first, way ahead of everyone else, but OpenAI is productizing faster (like Apple did with Xerox PARC's research).
With AI, most failed products aren't just "late" at the game, they often never release anything at all. Most of the wild claims made by AI companies could be strait up lies and we would never know because no one other than the devs has laid eyes on it directly.
The LLM / foundation model industry will happily stay in the United States and ignore the stifling regulation of the EU if necessary. There is so much market share to capture domestically at the moment.
New laws would have to outlaw fair use, that will likely not happen as the only country that ignores such laws will win, especially now that the cat is out of the bag.
They can redefine fair use without removing it entirely. Thing like that happen all the time.
Will it be effective? Dunno, but LLMs aren't as easy to duplicate or execute as films are to pirate or watch, and yet copyright law still gets enforced somewhat.
I have no idea how OpenAI would look at this, and of course there are similar obstacles here re:copilot vs. gpl, but couldn't they just shut off European access.
I think AI would be so important that Europe couldnt afford to not have AI. Wonder how this would resolve.
My guess is that the petty little bureaucratic tyrants in the EU would much rather deprive their subjects of new products than give up any sliver of their power.
One could hope that this would cause a rebellion, but recent history suggests that the populace will go along with anything their lords decree.
Longer reply: I love the EU so much. One of the few institutions taking big tech to task. I can roam cell operators at no extra cost, ensure that companies cant data mine me without my express permission and other wonderful tech oriented regulation.
It is extremely narrow minded to believe that throwing all principle out the window is the only way to «not stifle innovation».
«The lords decree», where does one even begin. The biggest fight against bigtech involving amongst others the cloud act that lets the us govt spy on anyone in complete secrecy is literally spearheaded by a common man [0].
This entire post is either satire, and if so I ate it hook line and sinker… or it is some kind of privacy exploitation stockholm syndrome.
They do occasionally pass decent legislature, but i fear GreedClarifies is likely correct that it's probably more about them wanting the power big tech is currently centralizing for themselves.
For examples check the recent news from Belgium as they've uncovered recent corruption issues in the European Parliament. There is even an organization funded by the EU which is unapologetically treating political refugees as prisoners (putting them behind bars with literal cameras in their "living" space.
There was a pretty good report on German state media about that topic, should have English subtitles though if you can't understand it
https://youtu.be/tJMLNMlJkPw
I am glad they're currently pushing back against big tech though, as FAANG is already speedrunning our society into a total dumbsterfire, but love to that organization is just misplaced. (Or should we call it MAMAA now? Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet Amazon)
You mix up privacy wrt to the state (which has the monopoly on violence) vs private organisations. Two very different cans of worms. The EU is determined to fight the latter while embracing the former (as its incentives would suggest)
You clearly have no idea about how the european union works. It is a much lighter touch on society in general than the us is. We might not have as much gun freedom, but on pretty much every other scale I’d rate the EU higher than the US on «liberty».
No one is banning books about gay people in my kids school for example.
Either way curtailing big tech with regulation has nothing to do with big brother. They are regularing companies, not individuals.
The NSA is the biggest of Brothers in the world and supposedly the country keeps on innovating and big tech power is strongest here. How do you square that circle?
Well power is toxic that way unfortunately, I’m happy we’re having a bribery scandal right now (even if it’s being ignored by much of the media) and that things like Chat Control is being brought up (https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/).
EU will do a lot in the name of its subjects, but in the end it comes down to power and money. Anyone thinking it won’t end up as a totalitarian forced unification of the member states are sorely mistaken, or viewing it within the context of a minuscule time frame.
The great thing about the current-gen LLMs — anybody will be able to run one on the next gen of hardware. We’re within one order of magnitude of the capacity right now on retail hardware.
The moment of transition from “data-centric” (big centralized system/database) to “agent-centric” (locally stored/run systems and identity, sharing arbitrary data/storage) has arrived.
GDPR, LLM “guard rails”, … — only the plebs will be affected by those.
> The moment of transition from “data-centric” (big centralized system/database) to “agent-centric” (locally stored/run systems and identity, sharing arbitrary data/storage) has arrived.
I agree. Use cases such as LLMs-as-backend-of-my-web-stack will move a lot of compute back to the edge of the network, eventually.
At some point, US companies will get fed up with constantly being harassed by the EU and just give up on the relatively small (as in money, not population) European market entirely. The hostility is simply not worth it.
For a sense of scale - the EU has 0 (zero) of the 14 largest companies by market cap. Out of the next 25, only a handful are in the EU.
The world's third largest tech sector is in a European country (the UK), and the two country's bigger than it are literally continent-scale superstates with around 10x the GDP.
The EU is set up to regulate already giant companies, which means it's not possible to create new ones because they can't afford the regulatory risk. (Mostly because the regulations are intended to troll American companies, not to do anything useful.)
And there isn't sufficient venture capital to build up new ones either. Maybe they can all adopt Yandex and VK.
And not a single one of them would be missed or affect European quality of life if they would be gone. How would Europe survive without Facebook...Microsoft spyware and Google advertisements?
> OpenAI is productizing faster (like Apple did with Xerox PARC's research)
what happens in cases like this is a slightly different dynamic what it seems on the surface. Apple, coming of huge success with the Apple ][ using the anemic but cheap 6502 8 bit to build a low-end (compared to Xerox) mass market (compared to Xerox) product, was well positioned to capitalize/productize the next generation of more capable 16/32 bit chips without changing their business model or distribution channel. It's right place right time, plus "easier to improve from the bottom, than downgrade from the top".
This idea was identified in a famous McKinsey study of the British motorcycle industry's loss of market share to low cost Japanese competition in the 1960's and 70's. The post WWII Japanese market developed to serve people who needed transportation but could not afford the leading British brands, not to mention autos. Once Japan had a successful motorcycle industry it was natural for them to export inexpensive bikes to Southeast Asia and South Asia. The British companies (Triumph, BSA, Norton) did not make much profit on the cheap bikes, they made their profit on the powerful luxury models, so they abandoned competing in the cheap sectors.
But then another force comes into play: if you manufacture a large number of something (there is always more of the cheap things) you get all sorts of manufacturing advantages. If you figure out a way to use achieve sturdy construction with fewer nuts and bolts, you get to save those nickels over many many bikes which makes it worth your effort to be good at that. If 1 out of 100 of your bikes leaks oil, and you sell a million, you get a lot of complaints, and you fix it. (these are called "learning curve advantages", and they tend to be logarithmic, so by being 10x bigger, you get +something better)
But who especially wants to buy sturdy, reliable transport (everybody) and is willing to pay a premium for it (rich people in the form of high margins)? So being the largest (and by definition the best) manufacturer of a product leaves you perfectly positioned to be the best high margin luxury supplier.
Xerox was not asleep at the switch, they were just not a high volume low cost manufacturer with a presence in the consumer market, at the time when these learning curve manufacturing/marketing ideas had just been developed so they weren't used to thinking that way. Nor was it a case of the suits not listening to the engineers; the engineering ethos at Xerox was not "can we squeeze this on the smallest chip possible", it was "omg let's leverage Moore's law onto even bigger high end chips, compile into microcode!"
I know it's popular to hate on MBAs here, but this is an example of what they learn, and why VC's might like to see an MBA on the team, this is the kind of talk they want to see in the business plan rather than an impossible dream.
Thanks for the analogy. It seems OpenAI is getting ahead in building mass-market products (ChatGPT, Microsoft Partnership) by using 'lesser' LLMs (vs Google's published results).
From what I've been reading/tinkering, this expertise is essential bc these models are very useful only if the UX paradigms accommodate for them. Getting their hands dirty with consumer-facing applications may keep them a step ahead of Google despite the research 'disadvantage'.