It's hard not to react sarcastically to this. But I will try:

There's nothing special about EU regulations vis-a-vis other laws. China, Russia and the US also have laws, many of which are also perceived as overly bureaucratic.

>then EU would become a vassal of Russia

Russia is currently struggling to make inroads on invading its relatively small neighbor, so I really doubt it would be able to make a bunch of nuclear powers who have a nuclear alliance its "vassal"

I understand that Russia's not fighting just Ukraine but rather Ukraine with massive US and EU assistance but my point still stands.

I think you have an over-aggrandised opinion of Russia's geopolitical, military, and economic power.

I'd rather be free and my data safe than be an economic world leader. False dichotomy, I know, but I don't mind the people before money mindset.

We’ll see if these LLMs end up having a real use, once the “giving away investor money” business model dries up. They really might! But it seems early to say that the EU has missed out on anything, before we see what the thing is.

In general, it is hard to compare the US and the EU; we got a head start while the rest of the world was rebuilding itself from WW2. That started up some feedback loops. We can mess up and siphon too much off a loop, destroying it, and still be ahead. They can be setting up loops without benefitting from them yet.

In the 1940s, the CIA wrote the Simple Sabotage Field Manual [1] explaining methods to damage their rivals' operations through largely bureaucratic means.

Today, we have fully automated the methods from this manual in the form of LLM Chatbots, which we have for some reason deployed against ourselves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Sabotage_Field_Manual

Comments like yours remind me that while HN is a competent technological forum, it's best to never, ever, engage in serious macro-economic/ int. politics discussions as the average user engaging in the latter topics is so far off base with common knowledge in these areas, any insider wouldn't find common ground.

Overconfidence bias is real.

Knowing your circle of competence is a gift.

They seem to be improving a lot on their defense spending, at least.

Will take them a while to get out from under the US umbrella. But acknowledging the problem is the first step.

The EU is a vassal of the US, that is its entire raison d'être.

>If I was Russia and/or China and I wanted to eliminate EU as a potential rival economically and militarily, then I don't think I could have come up with a better way to do it than EU regulations.

Personally I'm not too worried anyone is going to become a global superpower from generative AI slop.

Ah yes, famous industrial/scientific powerhouse... russia???

Check here - https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/assessment/eu-ai-act-co...

Start on the right, and click through the options. At the end you'll get a sort of assessment of what you need to do.

South Korea has a number of unusual regulations, including extremely strict restrictions on spatial data [1] and an AI law that, among other things, requires foreign companies to have a representative physically in South Korea to answer to the government [2]. So it's not too surprising to see it on the list.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_dat...

[2] https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/south-korea-ai-law-2...

> nor does it have equivalent laws

The UK has their chat thing where if you provide chat (even with bots!) you have to basically be a megacorp to afford the guardrails they think "the kids" need. It's not clear if open source models fall into that, but who's gonna read 300+ pages of insanity to make sure?

i don’t think it is incorrect to select an architect of this regulation as one of the most influential people on AI

EU is fully invested into virtue signalling over actual tangible results. People keep saying how much stronger EU's economy is than Russia's, and how Russia is basically a gas station with Nukes, but the thing is, even with EU's "strong" economy Russia has them by the balls. They have to go hat in hand begging the US to step in because they can't do anything themselves, and the US is not going to keep propping up EU long term, especially not with how hostile the Europeans are towards Americans.

I live in Europe, I don't want Europe to become a vassal of China/Russia - but if something drastically does not change it will. Russia is Europe's Carthage, Russia must fall. There is no future with a Russia as it is today and a Europe as it is today in it, not because of Europe, but because of Russia. If Europe does not eliminate Russia, Russia will eliminate Europe. I have no doubts about this.

But as things stand, there just seems no way in which we practically can counter Russia at all. If Europe had determination, it would have sent Troops into Ukraine and created a no-fly zone — it should do that, but here we are.

Unlikely laziness, since they went to the effort of writing a custom license in the first place.

A more plausible explanation is the requirements and obligations of those markets are ambiguous or open-ended in such a way that they cannot be meaningfully limited by a license, per the lawyers they retain to create things like licenses. Lawyers don’t like vague and uncertain risk, so they advised the company to reduce their risk exposure by opting out of those markets.

It's a careful way of running a business with potential users in highly-regulated markets. They don't know their regulations or laws. They don't want to invest labor in complying with them.

So, they reduced their liability by prohibiting usage of the model to show those jurisdictions' decision makers they were complying. I considered doing the same thing for EU. Although, I also considered one mught partner with an EU company if they are willing to make models legal in their jurisdiction. Just as a gift to Europeans mainly but maybe also a profit-sharing agreement.

Thanks!! I saw there wasn't all that much on github so I missed that part.

i work in this field, i assure you that there is significant compliance toil and risk. i just had to interrupt my vacation to deal with evolving DMA issues.

one of the big problems with EU regulation is how vague it is, just look at the text of the AI act

I agree with you that it would be "made up" content, but I don't know how else to fill in the missing data. The area not scanned by LiDAR is just upstream from and directly beneath a set of whitewater rapids.

I can guesstimate the shape of the bottom by the behaviour of the flow, and hand-model the missing parts of the mesh. I thought outsourcing that to a generative model would be a nice shortcut -- and who knows, likely it'll synthesize it more true-to-nature than I would.

The shape river bottom causes a few standing waves / rapids to form. I am fascinated by it and want to better understand the hows and whys of it.

I'm also very curious. Searching for missing persons? Buried treasure?

Almost like the communists chose what iconography to use!

I suppose that's an option yeah, but when people envision turning this kind of thing into a VR holodeck I think they're expecting unbounded exploration and interactivity, which precludes pre-baking everything. Flattening the scene into a diorama kind of defeats the point.

Based on just about every Two Minute Papers video, the engineering/research attack the latency from both sides. The hardware grants steady improvements and an occasional paper is published with a new/improved approach that decimates the compute required.

This is possible, but mostly for generating assets in the somewhat same style that you already have. Problem is that AI models are not good at tracking state of multiple entities on one image including 2.5 Flash Image.

If you actually want something consistent you should really generate images one by one and provide extensive description of what you expect to see on each frame

And if you want to make something like animation it's only really possible if you basically generate thousand of "garbage" images and then edit together what fits.

Why do you think regulation is bad?

We didn't regulate adtech and now we're stuck with pervasive tracking that's hurting society and consumer privacy. Better to be more cautious with AI too so we can prevent negative societal effects rather than trying to roll them back when billions of euros are already at play, and thus the corporate lobby and interests in keeping things as they are.

We didn't regulate social media algorithms which started optimising for hate (as it's the best means of "engagement") and it led to polarisation in society, the worst effects of which can be seen in the US itself. The country is tearing itself apart. And we see the effects in Europe too. Again, something we should have nipped in the bud.

And the problem isn't mainly the tech. It's the perverse business models behind it, which don't care about societal diruption. That's pretty hard to predict, hence the caution.

Peak American thinking: megacorps and dictatorships stealing data with no respect whatsoever for privacy and not giving anything back is good. Any attempt to defend oneself from that is foolish and should be mocked. I wish you people could realize you're getting fucked over as much as the rest of us.

I don't know a single person who would prefer to change a little bit of the source dataset and then spend $100k training from scratch. Everyone finetunes existing models not simply because the source dataset is not available (for some models, it is available), but because retraining from scratch sucks for modifying models.

Yes, which may be fine or not depending on the end goal of the person I replied to. Some applications need the certainty of LiDAR and others can tolerate it if the model makes some mistakes.

Yes, but that's not a novel part of this. We've been able to do that for a while (a long while if you count binocular or time-of-flight vision systems).

I guess for combat, you would want ones that could sensibly work together and adapt, possibly different levels of aggression, stealth etc Even as good as FEAR would be something.

I just found out about these last week and haven't received the hardware yet, so I can't give you real numbers. That said, one can probably expect at least a 10-30% penalty when the cards need to communicate with one another. Other workloads that don't require constant communication between cards can actually expect a performance boost. Your mileage will vary.

Two of them, giving us stereo vision. We are provided visual cues that encode depth. The ideal world model would at least have this. A world model for a video game on a monitor might be able to get away with no depth information, but a) normal engines do have this information and it would make sense to provide as much data to a general model as possible, and b) the models wouldn't work on AR/VR. Training on stereo captures seems like a win all around.

Incorrect. My sense of touch can be activated in 3 dimensions by placing my hand near a heat source. Which radiates in 3 dimensions.

The GPCRs [1] that do most of our sense signalling are each individually complicated machines.

Many of our signals are "on" and are instead suppressed by detection. Ligand binding, suppression, the signalling cascade, all sorts of encoding, ...

In any case, when all of our senses are integrated, we have rich n-dimensional input.

- stereo vision for depth

- monocular vision optics cues (shading, parallax, etc.)

- proprioception

- vestibular sensing

- binaural hearing

- time

I would not say that we sense in three dimensions. It's much more.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein-coupled_receptor

And the brain does sensor fusion to build a 3d model that we perceive. We don't perceive in 2d

There are other sensors as well. Is the inner ear a 2d sensor?

It is simply wrong to describe touch and proprioception receptors as 2D.

a) In a technical sense the actual receptors are 1D, not 2D. Perhaps some of them are two dimensional, but generally mechanical touch is about pressure or tension in a single direction or axis.

b) The rods and cones in your eyes are also 1D receptors but they combine to give a direct 2D image, and then higher-level processing infers depth. But touch and proprioception combine to give a direct 3D image.

Maybe you mean that the surface of the skin is two dimensional and so is touch? But the brain does not separate touch on the hand from its knowledge of where the hand is in space. Intentionally confusing this system is the basis of the "rubber hand illusion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion

with one eye you have temporal parallax, depth cues (ordering of objects in your vision), lighting cues, relative size of objects (things further away are smaller) together with your learned comparison size etc.

The fucking Mike Tyson’s of the seas.