At this point I lost all hope for Europe playing any significant role in the AI race. If that’s a good or a bad thing I don’t know, but it seems to me like that’s the reality.
The reality is that the US is betting its economy on data centers at great expense and is exposing its economy to great risk.
Also while geographically a lot of the money and processing power is in the US, the US has been relying on immigration to power its universities and especially AI research has roots all over the globe. India, China, Russia, Europe, etc. AI related know how is finding its way back to all these places.
So, I'm not too worried about the long term here. It will be interesting to see if Anthropic and OpenAI survive their IPOs. Seems like a risky financial bet at this point given the apparent lack of a moat. But if it works out, it will result in a lot of that IPO money being invested in data centers abroad. Including in the EU. Because data residency is a thing here and the EU is too big of a market for companies with that kind of valuation to ignore. We also produce a lot of energy infrastructure (e.g. gas and wind turbines). Those data centers will need lots of power.
Demis Hassabis and Google's Deep Mind are all British in terms of location/talent, but they certainly aren't from a coorporate perspective (Deep Mind work might happen in London, but it is owned by Google, as US company)
(I don't know a lot about nuclear/aerospace industries, I'm guessing there more location centered just in virtue of being based around physical things, but I could be wrong)
Race dynamics increases p(doom) for everyone.
The non-doom scenarios include "utopia for all", and "power flows to investors, not citizens of whichever nation the winning model's corp. was registered in".
Independently, "oh look all the investors went bankrupt" can happen in both "doom" and "normal technology" timelines.
With a lot of Chinese nationals in American companies, and an American corporation owning DeepMind, and a lot of people very upset with all of them at the same time, this is very messy.
"Winning the race" doesn't give you that in any meaningful capacity. It gives you, at the absolute most, a temporary window where that's the case. See: nuclear weapons.
This is the weakest part of the argument. Absolutely no reason to believe the second inventor will be 10x faster.
Does this ever happen? Even in traditional manufacturing, the second “inventor” starts behind and has to improve their own process to surpass the first.
Europe already has an innovation problem that's already causing structural economic instabilities which Germany has been struggling (and lately failing) to prop up.
As much as it pains me to say this, AI is already a tech revolution and it seems like Europe is just ignoring it. There's more innovation in 3 blocks in downtown San Francisco than the entire continent of Europe.
QED being first didn't grant exclusivity.
The premise wasn't that AGI isn't useful. There are actually layers to the metaphor where first-mover advantage of AGI is even less meaningful than it was for nuclear weapons, but I leave those as an exercise to the reader to discover.
This is your opinion. Lots of tech money appears to disagree.
You should at least try to explain your contrarian position, or cite your favorite source that makes an argument that you believe.
FWIW I explained it fully and provided the argument, along with explicit grounding examples. Can you tell me what exactly you don't understand?
To quote your other post:
> This is the weakest part of the argument. Absolutely no reason to believe the second inventor will be 10x faster.
Nor is there any reason to believe that it will work at any usable speed. An LLM capable of AGI running at 0.000001tok/s isn't a very good head start. Nor is it a good moat if it can't actually realize anything material fast enough. Lord knows America has labor problems.
I'm demonstrating the context is a lot more complicated than "be first". There are innumerable specific examples. They're not guaranteed to happen, that's not the point being made.
Also "no reason" is curious when it's the explicit pattern this exact industry has exhibited. Chinese models lag a few months, and come in swinging with an order of magnitude more efficiency. Does it apply? Who can say. It's certainly on the table. Pretending like it's any more ridiculous than AGI itself is irrational.
> Does this ever happen? Even in traditional manufacturing, the second “inventor” starts behind and has to improve their own process to surpass the first.
To use the industry itself once again: Japan was the first to deep learning. Performance issues prevented them from capitalizing on it. Now they're barely even a player on the field. Interestingly and adjacent to the industry, Japan was second to symbolic AI, and the FGCS was lightyears ahead of America's crufty Lisp ecosystem. For a more modern example, Google was the first to transformers. Much of this revolution is thanks to them. A shame that Gemini is third-rate at best.
It's not unique to this industry. That second inventor more often than not does a better job than the original one. It's a pretty common pattern. Otherwise, we wouldn't need patents.
My "contrarian position" is anything but. There is nothing new under the sun. You don't just need to be first, you need to maintain exclusivity.
If AI is different, the onus is on AI folk to explain why, not the reverse.
The frontier labs are racing as hard as they can right now because they know as well as anyone else that they're at best 6 months, probably closer to 3 months, ahead of the generic commodity AI market. The majority of the tech money currently boosting them is a bet that either they can stay that far ahead without tripping, or that a moat can be engineered. It's not at all clear that it can - or, if it can, that it will before the money runs out.
And I quote:
> Imagine a world where only one country has AGI/ASI.
We'll see.
You've fallen for the hype. The only way these AI companies can justify their bullshit worth and burn of capital is by promising a magical AGI. It's just marketing and it is still unclear if LLM's will ever be profitable.
If they won't - then EU is doing the right thing laying low.
> Or a world where Europe only gets access to frontier models 6 months later.
What a calamity!
Exactly. People seem to forget that US is burning money at an accelerating rate without any promise of returns. This is a high risk situation. Time will tell.
My own bet is that this won't happen with the current race, but that's another discussion.
Anyways, bit of a doomer take but if I imagine a world with AGI/ASI, countries don't mean shit anymore. Humans are not the top dog anymore.
Who says the LLM race ends at an AGI/ASI finish line in the first place ?
I hope we (EU) don't waste money trying to train local models (which at least some people in Poland try to do), and tries to build our own chips - AI chips have different architecture than regular processor/GPU, and TSMC doesn't need to be winner in this new race.
And if not this, then smaller labs, harnesses and actual application.
Fine tuning an open model to European values is significantly cheaper than making your own model.
Ha. It's a large market of the LLMs consumption. So it which will affect the AI race. Just from other perspective than you assumed.
They can kick into a true war economy and then become significantly more of a threat. They haven't done so yet because the middle-class population likes their luxury lifestyle (for now).
I highly doubt Ukraine will "win" - in fact I believe Russia is ramping up to find an excuse at some point to attack a NATO country, but in a way and during a point in time it's difficult for NATO to retaliate.
Fair enough. But most of the time, the figure is not used to say that Italy is more advanced than Russia, for whatever definition of advanced. It’s a check in the other direction: even if Russia does have advantages, in the grand scheme of things they are not that big.
> They can kick into a true war economy and then become significantly more of a threat. They haven't done so yet because the middle-class population likes their luxury lifestyle (for now).
They did, just in the parts of Russia that are poorer and less-connected (and less powerful politically). They leveraged their huge geographical advantage to spread the pain as much as possible in the regions that don’t matter politically. It is very difficult to see their situation and argue that they are not in a war economy. The middle class in Moscow and St Petersburg are sheltered, true, but still.
> I believe Russia is ramping up to find an excuse at some point to attack a NATO country, but in a way and during a point in time it's difficult for NATO to retaliate.
I don’t think that is likely. But then, of course Trump is making it more and more likely by the day as he insists on getting bogged down in Iran.
I’m glad Mistral is working on useful solutions.
OpenAI/Anthropic is like a retarded little sibling chasing “AGI” and giving up on rich media and other modalities.
OpenAI/Anthropic is the worst of the mainstream AI.
It goes:
1. Gemini
2. Vidu
3. Le Chat (Mistral)
4. DeepAI
5. [insert MiniMax provider]