Socialism is not necessarily cuddly. "To each according to his contribution" is the one sentence description of it after all. I want socialism, because it's "to each according to his contribution" but "to each according to his contribution" isn't obviously this nice cuddly we-take-care-of-everybody type thing.

I'd call the New Deal an attempt to bring discipline to go from capitalism to free markets, to control excesses, prevent monopolies and otherwise preventing people from locking down the economy so that there can be competition, and that's a goal compatible with socialism, because it does bring us closer to "to each according to his contribution" but it isn't an attempt at creating socialism, but of breaking capitalism down to create a market economy with free markets (capitalism is not a market economy, capitalism is the accumulation of capital by some to the exclusion of others, so capitalism and a market economy with free markets are actually things that are extremely incompatible).

Anyone who can publish a gene technology/biomedicine paper can make a bioweapon. If you wrote a paper about how to make a bioweapon easily, it would be unpublishable not because of any danger, but because there wasn't enough novelty.

I'm kind of surprised that there haven't been criminal cases.

Surely Anthropic/OpenAI ToS isn't something which can have more weight than, let's say, the ToS of a website expressed through robots.txt, considering that for the length, actual human effort has gone into writing the text, at a cost much greater than anything output by an LLM. So so long as the AI firms are allowed to crawl and then train on human-generated websites that don't allow crawling, but are crawled anyway, I think this kind of thing is really hard to justify.

Still, maybe less money could be enough.

If Euclyd's chip costs 40k per chip and we want to substitute all worldwide H200 inference capacity, so let's say 700,000 H200eds and Euclyd are right about how good their chip is, then we'd need 28,000 Euclyd cards, this is only 1.120 billion.

So maybe even 1 billion for VSORA chips this year and then two billion for VSORA and Euclyd chips next year, with the split based on how well the chips perform and some money for the lagging firm so they can keep designing things too.

Here in the EU Rhea 1 was delayed and thus maybe a bit of a failure, but Rhea 2 might be good and seems to be on time. OpenChip seems to be on time too. The university work, people like Hochreiter etc. is clearly good.

What are the high-profile failures?

I don't think it would even be that expensive. I think with EU chips we could do it for 20 billion EUR + 5 billion EUR per year. After all, an H200 doesn't cost 40k to manufacture, probably one-tenth, and if we are making the chips we can get the money circulating just as the Americans have.

Add in some state effort to create suitable training data-- maybe encourage academics to create some things that are AI-friendly, and let all the people trying have that. There would hardly be anyone in the game other than us if we went for this package.

We already have VSORA. Maybe Euclyd is ready soon too. If enough are ordered we have 85% of the inference need gone, so that whatever accelerators are freed can be repurposed for supercomputing and training? Maybe we could have some organized effort to make many of the VSORA and Euclyd chips so that the chips we need for training are freed up while we wait for our own training chips.

Edit: So in the end I think the thing we need to do is to order enough VSORA Jotunn8 cards and enough Euclyd cards that we flood the inference market so much that the price of H200eds etc. drops and we can buy them second hand and assemble huge supercomputers out of them. This may require some diplomatic effort from the commission, something like 20B EUR almost immediately and some coordination, but it's easy, it's doable and it requires only being a little bit decisive. Since these cards are faster less memory will be tied up in serving the models, so it'd have a positive effect on memory prices too, which in turn would have a positive effect on European supercomputer centers, who are currently of course constrained by high memory prices.

mLSTM layers are completely parallel (the update rule for the cell state is C_t = f_t C_{t-1} + i_t x_t where f_t and i_t are gates that can be computed from x_t alone, x_t is the input at time t and this means that you can compute F_s = \prod_{sI'm not sure whether this is hardware or optimization dependent to some degree, but I get the impression that good custom kernels are an important part of this kind of thing.

I suspect that the reason it has so many parameters is the same reason that compute optimal xLSTMs have some many parameters, and the success of this model makes me a bit unhappy that we haven't gotten an xLSTM-style model of huge size developed in Europe.

Obviously these guys are very pragmatic, they're probably not committed to anything other than what works on their internal evaluations, so they still have ordinary attention layers in the model and so on, and one can't be guaranteed that the people who come up with a good model then do the engineering in an ideal way, but I still think the success of Kimi shows what could have been if we had enough big supercomputers for LLM training and made them available to the right people-- because this is basically Hochreiter's thing. It's RNNs, or well, mostly RNNs.

If patent examination is correctly performed, then all patents will have real novelty and the people who have to license a patent haven't had anything taken away from them since the novelty means that they wouldn't have come up with the thing they have to license anyway.

An inventor can invent things that make a nuclear power plant cheaper or more efficient or better in some other way. He can't control whether the people and organizations who can afford nuclear plants decide to use his invention.

So NPEs are necessary for patents to work for small the inventor, and are how patents work for the small inventor. A small inventor in an expensive field is always a NPE.

You can't separate the EU from what people use it to do.

If EU institutions are used to push this sort of thing, we must treat that as what they are for. Systems do not get a pass because someone external is 'using them', but must be treated holistically.

Left-leaning politics has moved to very mild, not-even-social-democracy policies, taxation of wage income, a decreased focus on capital owners.

Left-leaning politics has thus been transformed beyond belief and has very little to do with what it used to. Most politicians have no idea about physical reality, which is the ultimate source of technology, but live sometimes in a world of administration, sometimes in a world of laws and sometimes in a world of politics only.

Left-liberals don't exist. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology: free trade, laissez-faire.

So I don't understand at all what you mean. What are the SocDems who have gone from being SocDems to not knowing what social democracy is and who now think about things like welfare and administrative stuff and living in a world of compromises attached to?

I can't see that they're attached to anything, and I think I despise them for it. At least someone who looks back to the past can look at it and critique it and see what ideas were valuable, what the real goals were, that led to different positive achievements.

If we have an singular value decomposition, M=USV^*, the columns of U are linearly independent they are a basis for the space M maps things into, and the columns of V are linearly independent then it's a basis for the space it maps things from, and [M]_{BB'} = S.

A smaller fraction than in the US. I think most people I know drive.

>I see walking to work as an relative to each individual and their job lcoatiopna dn circumstance of where they live, not a country related thing.

Well, it isn't. It's about how walkable environments are.

>GDP growth "experts" would disagree. It's the reason we don't have mandatory WFH for white collar jobs after Covid proved it's possible and salves the environment

Well, they may disagree, but the whole point is the goal of society isn't GDP, since GDP is easy to game with things like creating situation where people are effectively forced to waste energy, drive to work-- that sort of thing.

If you put Germans whose lives function in a US-style, even just getting to work will be a huge drag.

Misery depends on the structure of society. Here in Sweden I can walk to work. This means that I'm spending zero money on travel to work, and that my travel to work contributes $0 to Swedish GDP. But this is actually better than if Swedish GDP were higher and I was traveling by car.

This is one way in which GDP can be extremely misleading.