The issue with 'sovereign' is not about sneaky things a foreign entity might put in there, it's about control of the stack.
Since no individual buyer cares that much about geostrategic issues, it's almost impossible to get some random European company to think about buying anything other than 'whatever US or China' are making.
There has to be very concerted push to make a difference.
Legal mandates around sovereignty (be very careful here) could make a difference.
But there will also be market reaction: US/China companies will bend on some level and provide things like 100% EU hosted and even comply with some data source stuff.
The only real path is to be more competitive as a continent.
The EU AI act isn't primarily about "geostrategy". It's about protecting society.
AI models act as a force multiplier for intelligence, in particular for generating information according to someone's wishes.
I.e. deepfakes and social media mis-/disinformation campaigns are a thing and having powerful AI allows you to do those at scales that can overwhelm society's resilience.
In general, even if you have "aligned" AI: aligned with whom or what?
Whom are you comfortable with lording as a some demi-god over you, dictating what to believe?
> In general, even if you have "aligned" AI: aligned with whom or what?
> Whom are you comfortable with lording as a some demi-god over you, dictating what to believe?
This is why each country needs to educate and maintain their own researchers across as broad a spectrum of disciplines as possible. Also why there needs to be healthy locally financed (through taxes and grants in addition to consumer spending) ecosystem of reporters and media, so that social media (and LLMs) can be easily discarded as sources of social truth and information like other entertainment products in favour of the trusted ones.
As for technical truths, I don't think using informal social media like the stackexchanges or LLMs to explain how camera lenses or checksums work yields materially worse outcomes than consulting Wikipedia or Knuth. For most things, where it doesn't matter, the blind copy/pasters will prevail. Where it does matter, the organization of the work itself has to set out with establishing accountability that encourages the appropriate amount of diligence anyways. And also the point above about having some local expertise.
"This is why each country needs to educate and maintain their own researchers across as broad a spectrum of disciplines as possible. A"
There is no such thing. Countries spend gazillions on Academia, the Academics do waht they want.
There are no real government places or jobs for that kind of thing. It comes at great expense and vague outcome. Or it gets entangled in bureaucracy.
What you're hinting at is a form of 'utopian governance' - like - it perfectly makes sense on paper, and it's actually rational. But it's completely unworkable in the context of how governments and organizations actually work.
It could on work in theory, not particularly well in practice.
niemandhier · · focus · HN ↗
Right now one could run an open model for most government applications and it would be good enough, you just cannot trust any of these.
So having a sovereign controlled model audit the first one would basically act like a “trust adapter”.
If the second model is cheap and fast enough, there is a business model.
You don’t even need to audit all the intermediate steps, just tool calls and end results.
holaysuns · · focus · HN ↗
Since no individual buyer cares that much about geostrategic issues, it's almost impossible to get some random European company to think about buying anything other than 'whatever US or China' are making.
There has to be very concerted push to make a difference.
Legal mandates around sovereignty (be very careful here) could make a difference.
But there will also be market reaction: US/China companies will bend on some level and provide things like 100% EU hosted and even comply with some data source stuff.
The only real path is to be more competitive as a continent.
Loquebantur · · focus · HN ↗
AI models act as a force multiplier for intelligence, in particular for generating information according to someone's wishes.
I.e. deepfakes and social media mis-/disinformation campaigns are a thing and having powerful AI allows you to do those at scales that can overwhelm society's resilience.
In general, even if you have "aligned" AI: aligned with whom or what?
Whom are you comfortable with lording as a some demi-god over you, dictating what to believe?
simonra · · focus · HN ↗
This is why each country needs to educate and maintain their own researchers across as broad a spectrum of disciplines as possible. Also why there needs to be healthy locally financed (through taxes and grants in addition to consumer spending) ecosystem of reporters and media, so that social media (and LLMs) can be easily discarded as sources of social truth and information like other entertainment products in favour of the trusted ones.
As for technical truths, I don't think using informal social media like the stackexchanges or LLMs to explain how camera lenses or checksums work yields materially worse outcomes than consulting Wikipedia or Knuth. For most things, where it doesn't matter, the blind copy/pasters will prevail. Where it does matter, the organization of the work itself has to set out with establishing accountability that encourages the appropriate amount of diligence anyways. And also the point above about having some local expertise.
holaysuns · · focus · HN ↗
There is no such thing. Countries spend gazillions on Academia, the Academics do waht they want.
There are no real government places or jobs for that kind of thing. It comes at great expense and vague outcome. Or it gets entangled in bureaucracy.
What you're hinting at is a form of 'utopian governance' - like - it perfectly makes sense on paper, and it's actually rational. But it's completely unworkable in the context of how governments and organizations actually work.
It could on work in theory, not particularly well in practice.