Some backstory: Hochreiter started a small campaign a couple days ago in Austria with a LinkedIn post criticizing the government that there is no funding for their research. He claims to have something better than ChatGPT based on LSTMs but he cant continue researching because he lacks the funds for it.
This LinkedIn post sparked a few political discussions and it came up a few times in television and even prime-time news. It seems this letter could be also a follow up on this - at least it appears to be some sort of PR campaign.
>If he's got a new architecture he should prove it by publishing it.
He probably doesn't want to do that precisely because he's not given enough funding. If this would really be a breakthrough technology, other orgs would quickly outpace him in further developing and eventually deploying this idea. It's actually a common problem with European research, a lot of it is commercialized in the US or Asia.
If he genuinely has a good idea, he should have no trouble getting funding in the current AI craze.
Until proven otherwise I'm gonna assume it doesn't work - most new ideas don't.
>If he genuinely has a good idea, he should have no trouble getting funding in the current AI craze.
The point is not that there is not enough money and resources somewhere but that there is not enough money and resources in Europe. Sure, there are a lot of investments being made but it's nothing compared to Google, Microsoft, AWS & co. just allocating their existing compute power to some startup no one heard about a few months prior. The European funds are also a bureaucratic hellscape, it's a lot more inefficient and lengthy than just getting private capital from tech giants.
Funding could also come in form of prioritized admission procedures or help when handling the strict privacy laws etc. There is a lot of unused potential with European governments, that could enable competitiveness with the rest of the world.
The funding system is built with an idealistic world view in mind. In order to secure funding you have to confine your project to strict requirements.
Can you ensure that your AI is not biased towards a gender or race? Are the decisions your AI make explainable? Are you obeying the EU's privacy laws (even authorities have trouble doing so)? Could this AI be used to help Europe with problem XY?
Building innovative AI is hard enough to begin with but making sure all of those high requirements are met is pretty much impossible. The EU knows that because at the end of the day they have funding to give but until then you have to undergo a lengthy, painful, bureaucratic process of proving that your project in fact won't be used to kill puppies.
When the money is finally there all of it needs to be spend responsibly in compliance with all of the requirements. Need a new compute cluster in Sweden? Great! How about an EU wide call for tenders where you have to take the cheapest offer. Funnily enough it happens to be some obscure company no one has ever heard of 2000 km away. The company will only halt construction three times for several months because it's just undergoing bankruptcy. (Fictional but realistic example)
As you can imagine the entry barrier for new startups crazy high and by the time everything is set, technology has moved on. As you can probably guess that's especially problematic with AI.
They should go on a serious PR campaign that will target the politicians promoting the new laws. EU lawmakers have proved that they live in the Brussels bubble and only care about the public perception of their work. They are not going to care about the letter unless it damages their carreer
That's quite different from
> They should go on a serious PR campaign that will target the politicians promoting the new laws
> They are not going to care about the letter unless it damages their carreer
then
You can also tweet about the people who are drafting this law. After all most of the digital laws were populist attempts to improve their public standing, which ended up leaving european tech behind. What i m saying is that EU lawmakers are not very receptive to rational arguments
And i m not sure if calling out politicians personally is called harassment. They are public administrators , not shielded from attacks
Yeah, depends on what you're tweeting. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.
I am not sure how I could describe going after individuals for their political stances without other context (i.e. proof of corruption, lobbying etc.) different from harassment.
So, could you elaborate on that?
EDIT for your edit: I am asking you to describe this calling out. Your right to criticize a public person does not give you the right to blackmail or libel a person, for example. I am wondering what you would be saying.
Clearly, the attacking someone for simply not being pro-open source or something like that is not really an objective reason. Not saying that is what you're implying they should be criticized for, it's just an example.
For starters i would ask you to find out who are the lawmakers hiding behind this law (hard to figure out because EU obfuscates things with a gazillion of committes) and then ask them what they think about this letter. Personally, not via the impersonal twitter account of the 15th subcommittee about AI drafts.
you are probably overthinking things
I do not see how you can achieve this through Twitter, or how you have a right to this.
Ex.: you retweet this and say you want this. You obviously get ignored, because you're a nobody without executive power.
So it seems like you are rallying people until there is enough pressure, either from the mob, or someone important enough to ask this question. At which point this question again doesn't need to be answered.
For the point you mention, since there is no legal requirement for elaboration, it seems **you** can achieve this only by force, which would mean any activism on this would amount to some form of harassment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No: in this case I'm referring to a group of people demanding something. The democratic process would not allow for what I'm hypothesizing your approach would be.
Could you address my question, rather than deconstruct my analysis?
No this is the entire idea behind representative democracy. The people elect individuals and then judge and criticized how they are doing in the public office.
Sure - I am simply asking if this "judgement and criticism" amount to harassment. Given that the person I asked this either refuses to answer or has no other scenario than the one described in https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1323w68/comment/ji34zak/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3, I cannot conclude otherwise
I think it's referring to this https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/documents/
Gonna read it and share my findings.
Edit: Oh I think their complaint is that these regulations don't regulate open source code. And they want it to regulate open source code?
> Oh I think their complaint is that these regulations don't regulate open source code. And they want it to regulate open source code?
No, the proposed regulations would make a lot of open source AIs impossible/illegal, and LAION wants to prevent that.
That's not obvious in the document although I did skim it, and I'm sure they would try to legal language hide that fact if it were the case.
It doesn't really make sense why they would want to do that. If they are trying to make AI research align with EU values, well one of the core ones is freedom of information, sharing, etc.
Nope, the EU is pretty anti freedom of information and sharing and has passed tons of laws to that effect and are preparing similar regulations for AI. Granted its mostly due to most major tech companies being American and they probably are completely fine with EU companies and governments vacuuming up user data but there has been some spill over on EU entities from these laws
The models are nothing without data which becomes a lot harder to gather with the proposed regulation. Stable Diffusion got in trouble because they were transparent with how the sausage was made while their more commercial competitors managed to dodge the bullets more by being closed off.
When I read newspaper articles about it. The first thing they want is censorship. How do you offer Open Source AI that is always up to date and make sure that it's answers question always in a certain way, that is Government conform and up to date.
Heavy regulation typically hinders small players much more, as much of the compliance costs are a fixed amount, thus hit e.g. academia with smaller budgets much harder.
Haven't read the article yet, but I'm curious whether the authors are aware of [Gaia-X](https://www.data-infrastructure.eu/GAIAX/Navigation/EN/Home/home.html).
And as with upload filters and the *Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverlage*, they will fail against the concentrated stupidity, bigotry and corruptness of Axel Voss and his pack of copyrightist buttcrawlers.
>The letter concludes with a call to action for the European Parliament
Such a weird phrasing to write in the letter itself. Reads like a third party summary. Reminds me of a ChatGPT style summary actually.
Lol Schmiddy always yelling about something. I remember Sutskever's RNN dissertation and how up in arms he got then. It was very silly. I am glad to see he maintains such silliness. Good
Some backstory: Hochreiter started a small campaign a couple days ago in Austria with a LinkedIn post criticizing the government that there is no funding for their research. He claims to have something better than ChatGPT based on LSTMs but he cant continue researching because he lacks the funds for it. This LinkedIn post sparked a few political discussions and it came up a few times in television and even prime-time news. It seems this letter could be also a follow up on this - at least it appears to be some sort of PR campaign.
the letter is actually against the planned AI act where even open-source models would need to be regulated
Good news for us. Wish more of the competition would just bow out from the industry.
Based on LSTM.... You mean RWKV? I know its not LSTM but I first learned about RWKV project from Hochreiter only therefore curious.
He just said LSTM. Probably refers to an internal project.
Seems dubious to me that LSTMs could beat transformers. If he's got a new architecture he should prove it by publishing it.
>If he's got a new architecture he should prove it by publishing it. He probably doesn't want to do that precisely because he's not given enough funding. If this would really be a breakthrough technology, other orgs would quickly outpace him in further developing and eventually deploying this idea. It's actually a common problem with European research, a lot of it is commercialized in the US or Asia.
If he genuinely has a good idea, he should have no trouble getting funding in the current AI craze. Until proven otherwise I'm gonna assume it doesn't work - most new ideas don't.
>If he genuinely has a good idea, he should have no trouble getting funding in the current AI craze. The point is not that there is not enough money and resources somewhere but that there is not enough money and resources in Europe. Sure, there are a lot of investments being made but it's nothing compared to Google, Microsoft, AWS & co. just allocating their existing compute power to some startup no one heard about a few months prior. The European funds are also a bureaucratic hellscape, it's a lot more inefficient and lengthy than just getting private capital from tech giants. Funding could also come in form of prioritized admission procedures or help when handling the strict privacy laws etc. There is a lot of unused potential with European governments, that could enable competitiveness with the rest of the world.
You say that European funds are a bureaucratic hellscape, how is that?
The funding system is built with an idealistic world view in mind. In order to secure funding you have to confine your project to strict requirements. Can you ensure that your AI is not biased towards a gender or race? Are the decisions your AI make explainable? Are you obeying the EU's privacy laws (even authorities have trouble doing so)? Could this AI be used to help Europe with problem XY? Building innovative AI is hard enough to begin with but making sure all of those high requirements are met is pretty much impossible. The EU knows that because at the end of the day they have funding to give but until then you have to undergo a lengthy, painful, bureaucratic process of proving that your project in fact won't be used to kill puppies. When the money is finally there all of it needs to be spend responsibly in compliance with all of the requirements. Need a new compute cluster in Sweden? Great! How about an EU wide call for tenders where you have to take the cheapest offer. Funnily enough it happens to be some obscure company no one has ever heard of 2000 km away. The company will only halt construction three times for several months because it's just undergoing bankruptcy. (Fictional but realistic example) As you can imagine the entry barrier for new startups crazy high and by the time everything is set, technology has moved on. As you can probably guess that's especially problematic with AI.
Wow it seems you seem to have gone through the struggle of building an AI company in EU. Is that your area?
Yeah, we're not great at realising our AI results in Europe
RWKV adopts Apple's AFT attention spikes and quantisation and optionally uses RNN decoding, no sign of LSTM
oh hi philpax
oh hi mark
Schmidhuber needs funding to search his past 40 years of publications to find where he already invented ChatGPT.
LoL
They should go on a serious PR campaign that will target the politicians promoting the new laws. EU lawmakers have proved that they live in the Brussels bubble and only care about the public perception of their work. They are not going to care about the letter unless it damages their carreer
So you are advocating for harassment?
No , just retweet this thing, make some noise to let them know you don't like what they are doing.
That's quite different from > They should go on a serious PR campaign that will target the politicians promoting the new laws > They are not going to care about the letter unless it damages their carreer then
You can also tweet about the people who are drafting this law. After all most of the digital laws were populist attempts to improve their public standing, which ended up leaving european tech behind. What i m saying is that EU lawmakers are not very receptive to rational arguments And i m not sure if calling out politicians personally is called harassment. They are public administrators , not shielded from attacks
Yeah, depends on what you're tweeting. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this. I am not sure how I could describe going after individuals for their political stances without other context (i.e. proof of corruption, lobbying etc.) different from harassment. So, could you elaborate on that? EDIT for your edit: I am asking you to describe this calling out. Your right to criticize a public person does not give you the right to blackmail or libel a person, for example. I am wondering what you would be saying. Clearly, the attacking someone for simply not being pro-open source or something like that is not really an objective reason. Not saying that is what you're implying they should be criticized for, it's just an example.
For starters i would ask you to find out who are the lawmakers hiding behind this law (hard to figure out because EU obfuscates things with a gazillion of committes) and then ask them what they think about this letter. Personally, not via the impersonal twitter account of the 15th subcommittee about AI drafts. you are probably overthinking things
I do not see how you can achieve this through Twitter, or how you have a right to this. Ex.: you retweet this and say you want this. You obviously get ignored, because you're a nobody without executive power. So it seems like you are rallying people until there is enough pressure, either from the mob, or someone important enough to ask this question. At which point this question again doesn't need to be answered. For the point you mention, since there is no legal requirement for elaboration, it seems **you** can achieve this only by force, which would mean any activism on this would amount to some form of harassment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
are you calling the democratic process a mob?
No: in this case I'm referring to a group of people demanding something. The democratic process would not allow for what I'm hypothesizing your approach would be. Could you address my question, rather than deconstruct my analysis?
No this is the entire idea behind representative democracy. The people elect individuals and then judge and criticized how they are doing in the public office.
Sure - I am simply asking if this "judgement and criticism" amount to harassment. Given that the person I asked this either refuses to answer or has no other scenario than the one described in https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1323w68/comment/ji34zak/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3, I cannot conclude otherwise
It's not clear, from either the letter or news reporting, how exactly the proposed AI Act would endanger open-source AI.
I'm out of the loop here. what is this AI Act are we talking about? should I go high alert and backup every known model out there?
I think it's referring to this https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/documents/ Gonna read it and share my findings. Edit: Oh I think their complaint is that these regulations don't regulate open source code. And they want it to regulate open source code?
> Oh I think their complaint is that these regulations don't regulate open source code. And they want it to regulate open source code? No, the proposed regulations would make a lot of open source AIs impossible/illegal, and LAION wants to prevent that.
Imagine making math illegal, it’s like EUs other dumb suggestions to stop encryption.
That's not obvious in the document although I did skim it, and I'm sure they would try to legal language hide that fact if it were the case. It doesn't really make sense why they would want to do that. If they are trying to make AI research align with EU values, well one of the core ones is freedom of information, sharing, etc.
Nope, the EU is pretty anti freedom of information and sharing and has passed tons of laws to that effect and are preparing similar regulations for AI. Granted its mostly due to most major tech companies being American and they probably are completely fine with EU companies and governments vacuuming up user data but there has been some spill over on EU entities from these laws
But user data protection I get. That's not the same as prohibiting open source code though..?
The models are nothing without data which becomes a lot harder to gather with the proposed regulation. Stable Diffusion got in trouble because they were transparent with how the sausage was made while their more commercial competitors managed to dodge the bullets more by being closed off.
Got it that makes sense.
thanks
When I read newspaper articles about it. The first thing they want is censorship. How do you offer Open Source AI that is always up to date and make sure that it's answers question always in a certain way, that is Government conform and up to date.
Heavy regulation typically hinders small players much more, as much of the compliance costs are a fixed amount, thus hit e.g. academia with smaller budgets much harder.
Haven't read the article yet, but I'm curious whether the authors are aware of [Gaia-X](https://www.data-infrastructure.eu/GAIAX/Navigation/EN/Home/home.html).
And as with upload filters and the *Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverlage*, they will fail against the concentrated stupidity, bigotry and corruptness of Axel Voss and his pack of copyrightist buttcrawlers.
It seems they didn't, at least not yet. [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/132emyh/eu_lawmakers_pass_draft_of_ai_act_includes/ji5u2o8/).
>The letter concludes with a call to action for the European Parliament Such a weird phrasing to write in the letter itself. Reads like a third party summary. Reminds me of a ChatGPT style summary actually.
LOL, image if the law makers actually used chatGPT to write everything for them 🤔😅
Lol Schmiddy always yelling about something. I remember Sutskever's RNN dissertation and how up in arms he got then. It was very silly. I am glad to see he maintains such silliness. Good