Certainly no more heavily than the US polices its own "assets" - we also have export controls on inferencing hardware, review periods on frontier model releases, export bans on Fable/Mythos, etc.
It's pretty evident from their actions that China doesn't consider this an arms race in quite the same way a lot of the US crowd does. Rather it's an economic conflict: one in which flooding the market with cheap inference might bankrupt a bunch of over-leveraged US tech firms (and in doing so put serious brakes on the whole US economy)
To rephrase: How would it benefit China? Maybe it is to show that there is no secret sauce, burst the bubble and then profit from the chaos that will ensue? Collapsing US tech giants means lesser MAGA backing, cheaper stocks, cheaper properly..
The fact that the issue as described is such a small problem, that pales into the other issues.
One of the issues mentioned is PFAS, ... ignoring the fact that we have tons of PFAS pollutions already in our soils and not a darn thing is done.
We live very close to one of those sites, but its always excuses after excuse to solve. But PFAS on labels, panic, panic, ... The whole label issue can easily be solved by random sampling at import and a fine system. That automatically puts backpressure to fix it. No need for certificates left and right.
My point is that we keep making bureaucratic rules, that make every step more difficult for entrepreneurs here in Europe, instead of having a proper compliance setup. There is a entire industry around yearly audits (that cost 10.000's), like people who do it non-stop suddenly forget how to do it.
That is the issue ... Its not about rules but about barriers that make often setup in such a way to be barriers of entry/working, then compliance.
Tell me, how many times do you go to have your car checked. Yearly or every two years? That is one of those example where in some countries its yearly, other twice. Do the countries with two years have issues with their car park. No ... The result is the same but some people get to be inconvenienced twice (and pay twice). Do you understand it a bit more now?
There are rules and there are rules that add little beyond making everything difficult, when it can be solved in a better way.
Europe is allied with Taiwan and South Korea, and until recently also with the United States. Those countries can't build new chip factories without European lithography. Do you want everyone to innovate and grow by having each country focus on what they are good at, or do you want everyone to burn trillions reinventing the wheel over and over again solely for their own domestic market?
Not everything in life is a transactional zero-sum game. We as society can afford people to work on beauty, without anything else in return. I'd even argue that this should be one of mankind's ultimate goals.
I agree. It's aesthetically pleasing to know that there are people out there thinking about deep beautiful and elegant concepts somewhere, it's a nice part of having a society to be able to afford supporting such people. They may however start to feel a bit self conscious, like we keep them as a kind of quaint curiosity. People usually like to feel actually useful and impactful.
This is such a simplistic view I have difficulties deciding where to even start. Think of a manager as someone who engineers the fabric of the organization. Most of my time is spent debugging, communicating, finding the right abstractions, configuring processes - all very similar to the engineering work I previously did.
How would an investor see it? If an investor had access to a top-ranked management model, would s/he willingly spend 100x more on a person instead?
Or if you're saying you still do engineering/product work, then perhaps it shouldn't come with a management title. Whispering task allocation ideas to the AI is for everyone to do.
The art of management - beyond the day to day operations - is largely organization of abstraction and incentives.
As we’ve collapsed the cost of the operations then largely the point of such an llm is constructing above.
If you’re an engineer why wouldn’t you pay more for better abstractions in an llm? That’s half the work anyways.
To put some more context into this: a manager defines the shape of a group of people. They own amorphous blob of responsibilities and various services. This leads to context confusion and lack of ownership and diffuse ability to operate services.
To fix the manager goes:
Team a is responsible for say the device platform. Team b is for the applications platform. Each is responsible for their domain and the abstraction of team. Each is then responsible for their own ops, roi, quality, else. This attempts to maximize consistency of context, incentives, and scaling. Whether it works or not is frankly up in the air.
But notice this is basically the same as deciding in your intra service modularization and how you define the interfaces. Can you objectively say that whatever abstraction you usually write is correct? No. You just hope with experience and pragmatism.
Of course management would like to make that claim, but I don't see it substantiated. In what way is management "owning the consequences" -- are they losing their equity or risking an unpaid suspension?
reply