Surprised by this take. Building a startup is already insanely hard. So I wouldn’t like to add more challenge by spending time integrating with non-US services if they are not top just because of my political views.
I feel a better answer is for Europe to build real, competitive alternatives to US services.
This is just one example, but I think worth sharing:
I've been running a new solution in beta for a while and am about to go commercial (Germany). In my solution, it's essential to keep personal data safe and ensuring the customer it's not shared with anybody else.
I used Azure and AWS in the past, but stopped. Using only German data centers & services is a selling point for my customers and builds additional trust. Aside the initial effort, I don't see any big technological disadvantages for my use-case and actually pay less now for operating everything.
Optimal for society? Optimal for the Epstein class? Or do you mean optimal for the owner, personally, in the very short term?
Because that's the choice people are making these days. It's not really "partisan political posturing" to divest from countries running pedo blackmail rings on the world, or arming genocide, or bombing hundreds of schools. Targeting journalists, then lying about them to try and justify it. Pulling the plug on incubators. Targeting entire families with shoddy AI. Bombing civilian power plants and ambulances and hospitals and so on and on.
There's nothing partisan or posturing about saying "fuck all that". That's just your duty as a human being, the basic bare minimum. That duty doesn't get discarded just because you run a company or have evil competitors trying to race you to the bottom.
When companies are complicit with committing heinous atrocities at scale, and screwing up the world economy for their own gain, I find very little 'merit' in that. Is 'meritocracy' a purely financial term in your view? Do 'respect for life' and 'trust' and other nebulous concepts (which don't immediately affect the balance sheet) have merit?
> Optimal for society? Optimal for the Epstein class? Or do you mean optimal for the owner
No. Optimal for employees and customers, which is, in turn, optimal for society.
Making technology choices based on political ideology rather than merit is bad for the interests of both employees and customers.
The hyperbolic statements in your comment suggest your worldview comes from an online echo chamber. With respect, I think you'd benefit from consuming news from a variety of different sources. Think critically about the biases and agendas of the media.
War is an ugly business. Outcomes are rarely so pure that we can single out "good guys" and "bad guys". But hopefully once you've examined the facts objectively you'll see that the Israeli government is more ethical than Hamas, and you'll see that the American government (yes, even Orange Man Bad) is better than the Ayatollahs of Iran and their IRGC.
> The hyperbolic statements in your comment suggest your worldview comes from an online echo chamber.
No, nothing hyperbolic whatsoever. Everything I said is trivial to source.
If you believe otherwise then you might follow your own advice - this is all well documented stuff. You can even see the video of those premature babies that were left to rot by Israel, if you don't believe me.
No, I'm not saying that to shock you; it's an important documented fact. Like the prison rapists being celebrated on national Israeli TV, or the zip-tied teenagers run over by steamrollers, or the ambulances shot up and buried in a shallow grave, or Hind Rajab being used as bait for another ambulance, or any of the other thousands upon thousands of well documented atrocities which the US has helped to arm and enable.
> I suspect none of your favourite media sources mentioned the illegal cluster munitions that Iran used to destroy an Israeli kindergarten (among other civilian buildings) on Saturday
A kindergarten! Wow. That really is atrocious. Were there 100 schoolgirls in it, like the elementary school America blew up? Your source says no, but you seem really incensed by this property damage.
Is that worse though, in your view, than the 498 Iranian schools [0] targeted in the last months? Is it worse than destroying just about every school and hospital in Gaza?
> War is an ugly business
Being at war doesn't excuse war crimes - especially when the war begins because you don't like how well negotiations are going so you bomb a school killing 100 little girls, while killing the leader of a country with his grandchildren and torpedoing an unarmed ship.
> hopefully once you've examined the facts objectively you'll see that the Israeli government is more ethical than Hamas
To say this after the last three years requires something fundamental to be missing within you. I can not help you find it again. I wish I could; I truly do.
> you'll see that the American government (yes, even Orange Man Bad) is better than the Ayatollahs of Iran and their IRGC
Even if that were true, by whatever undefined metric you're defining as 'better', how does that give you the right to commit hundreds of war crimes and atrocities to change their government?
You might want to read up on recent US history btw - and how we're perceived right now [1]. There are many very good reasons why the world considers the US to be the greatest threat to global peace, stability and democracy [2], [3]; not just since "orange man" but since 2003 [4]. Iran never even come close.
Assuming: simplicity === no unnecessary complexity.
In my (limited) experience as an engineer and manager, leadership (e.g., a VP) didn’t like (or reward) simplicity. Simple solutions often meant smaller teams, which wasn’t something they were pushing for, especially pre-2024. I do think this is slowly evolving, and that the best leaders now focus on removing unnecessary complexity and improving velocity.
The challenge for Americans is: can the political work of defining and protecting our values be outsourced to a company like Anthropic?
Anthropic (and others), whether due to financial/regulatory/competitive, will at some point permit their products to be used for any lawful purpose. Even if they attempt to restrict certain uses today. That arrangement is unlikely to hold.
Americans should vote for the right candidates and elect leaders who will carry and defend their views. I don't think there is any other way.
I'm not trying to have a cynical hot take, but the political class seems not to offer up any candidates that carry or defend my views and the path to these positions requires funding and resources I will never have access to.
The situation in the United States, right now, seems genuinely hopeless. And I'm certain I'm not the only person who feels this way.
What is there to do besides resign myself to what's coming and try my best to ignore the bullshit?
The reality is that the US Constitution only offers strong guarantees to citizens and (some of) the people in the US. Foreigners are excluded and foreign mass surveillance is or will happen.
I believe every country (or block) should carve an independent path when it comes to AI training, data retention and inference. That is makes most sense, will minimize conflicts and put people in control of their destiny.
AI is a transformative technology that will reshape how companies are run. More layoffs may be coming unfortunately. But on the other end, more companies and more products will be created. More competition overall, including for Block.
The overarching risk, imo, is America turning against tech and its leaders / billionaires. I think this is slowly happening. And why not, if the People decide that tech is not bringing good things to our modern society anymore, that should be respected.
Similarly, in the 2000s, the US pushed back against the development of Galileo and preferred that Europe continue relying on GPS. That created tensions between the US and the EU.
Fighting data sovereignty is a losing battle for the US: data are too strategic to outsource, even to allies.
At this stage tech companies should be pushing for very strong legislation that makes the US a bastion of data privacy to restore trust. But they are still pushing in the other direction.
No amount of legislation can stop subpoenas, wiretapping and other extrajudicial means the US has used for data surveillance since the inception of the Patriot Act. With data privacy increasingly becoming a critical matter of national security, strengthening data sovereignty laws and holding corporations accountable was always the way forward.
This is untrue. Subpoenas, wiretapping, and other extrajudicial means can be stopped by legislation that bans them. You can't say in one breath that legislation that enables it (Patriot Act) cannot be undone by more legislation. There are many hurdles required to produce the required legislation, which may not even be broadly supported by the public, but it isn't correct to say "no amount of legislation can stop existing legislation".
If they could be stopped by legislation that bans them, they would have been stopped by the legislation that banned them prior to the legislation that authorised them, but we know this is not the case. They were being done on a wide scale long before they were legal.
That would require to repeal the FISA and the Patriot acts. That won't happen.
More fundamentally, however, the US constitution only protects Americans and American companies. Europeans would be foolish to trust the US with their data given this lack of basic protection and oversight.
Extrajudicial means something not legally authorized. The surveillance apparatus in the US for decades has operated outside the confines of legality. By definition, they cannot be stopped by legislation that bans them.
None of them want that. Meta actively hates you. Google doesn’t want data privacy. Neither does Apple, even if they aren’t overtly abusing it for advertising. Why would any of them push for more privacy? Their users largely don’t care (or they wouldn’t use those services in the first place).
My prediction: soon (e.g. a few years) the agents will be the one doing the exploration and building better ways to write code, build frameworks,... replacing open source. That being said software engineers will still be in the loop. But there will be far less of them.
Just to add: this is only the prediction of someone who has a decent amount of information, not an expert or insider
Generally us humans come up with new things by remixing old ideas. Where else would they come from? We are synthesizing priors into something novel. If you break the problem space apart enough, I don't see why some LLM can't do the same.
Yes it is, LLMs perform logical multi step reasoning all the time, see math proofs, coding etc. And whether you call it synthesis or statistical mixing is just semantics. Do LLMs truly understand? Who knows, probably not, but they do more than you make it out to be.
I don't want to speak too much out of my depth here, I'm still learning how these things work on a mechanical level, but my understanding of how these things "reason" is it seems like they're more or less having a conversation with themselves. IE, burning a lot of tokens in the hopes that the follow up questions and answers it generates leads to a better continuation of the conversation overall. But just like talking to a human, you're likely to come up with better ideas when you're talking to someone else, not just yourself, so the human in the loop seems pretty important to get the AI to remix things into something genuinely new and useful.
They do not. The "reasoning" is just adding more text in multiple steps, and then summarizing it. An LLM does not apply logic at any point, the "reasoning" features only use clever prompting to make these chains more likely to resemble logical reasoning.
This is still only possible if the prompts given by the user resembles what's in the corpus. And the same applies to the reasoning chain. For it to resemble actual logical reasoning, the same or extremely similar reasoning has to exist in the corpus.
This is not "just" semantics if your whole claim is that they are "synthesizing" new facts. This is your choice of misleading terminology which does not apply in the slightest.
I feel a better answer is for Europe to build real, competitive alternatives to US services.
reply