[CamperBob2]

Not every country is in a crypto-libertarian race to hoard power and wealth.

Meanwhile, in the EU, the model would be collectively financed, trained by a competent, neutral agency... and then completely lobotomized in the name of "the children," "safety," "IP rights," "correct speech," dozens of individual countries' legal and regulatory requirements, and any number of additional vocal, noncontributing NGOs.

So no one would get rich off of the public model, but no one would get much of anything else out of it, either.

As another reply suggests, there's a reason why things happen in the USA first. Even when they don't, the prime movers move here as soon as they can. Or at least they used to.

[dleslie]

European models are competitive, despite the concerns you raise.

I don't need a model that can easily produce CSAM or reproduce copyrighted works verbatim in order to be productive.

[CamperBob2]

EU models are not, in fact, competitive with US or Chinese models.

And that's not how these things work. If you censor the model for one purpose, you will degrade it for others. We both know that the bureaucrats won't stop at either of those purposes. It's not in a censor's nature to walk away satisfied.

[dleslie]

Mistral is competitive and useful.

And Anthropic is famous for putting guardrails on their models, and yet continue to lead.

We don't have to, and shouldn't have to, tolerate tools that easily produce csam or similarly undesirable output.