That’s not necessarily private then, and billing changes based on whims.

At least in Europe we are building a common super-computer infrastructure exactly for this. Tier 0 (EuroHPC) to tier 3 (University clusters) now have considerable amount of GPU (both due to demand, but also since classical CPU-heavy FLOPs have becime even more expensive due to RAM prices). Our system will be in a ISO 27001 / TISAX level 3 scope (rather relevant for engineering). The system work up to a PUE of 1.1 and will also solve part of heating decarbonization problem. We need souvereignity in research. But we at least in research we do not need each lab buying their own workstations anymore. The systems are actually also now also offered to start-ups and small enterprises that don't have the capex/opex for efficient and secure compute themselves.

That is a third possibility, because there are Federal supportrd resources for compute, see [1]. And I can and will probably use at some point, but there is something about not having to deal with other people's systems and having that bare metal right there.

[1] https://allocations.access-ci.org/resources

Where can I read up about this work, especially University clusters?

Ask someone at a university that's connected to it, and they'll tell you who to talk to. It's not exactly published work usually.

> At least in Europe we are building a common super-computer infrastructure exactly for this.

You're building a common infrastructure to address privacy concerns about the use of shared infrastructure??

More like building shared infra to get at a better and more efficent end of scaling laws, than having many small clusters all over. I don't think it really is a privacy question but just a way more economical solution.

Basically make your own hpc provider for academic purposes, and rent out extra capacity to smaller commercial interests to utilise that spare capacity and also prop up the local economy with usable research compute.

Notably, laws and.... attitudes towards privacy are very different so your question doesn't sound as insightful as you thought :)

Tell that to hugging face V Georgia, Australia, hugging face, etc…. While I agree with your sentiment that is simply not the case at the top.

The reason HF didn't win a legal battle is because they didn't sue, and they didn't sue because OpenAI is their business partner (or at least are closely wedded through their mutual partner Nvidia). If HF really wanted to press charges, it's very likely they would have won on any demonstrable claims of damage.

If HF did have any hard feelings about the event, they were likely settled with OpenAI out-of-court.

I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

You say that like it’s a problem? Sounds like the junkies have to be fed one way or another.

“It’s a job that requires lots of human interaction, and this part is notoriously complicated for engineers.”

Don’t worry, human interaction is very complicated. Thankfully there are no llm models/google/xai with technology to do exactly that. Your pearls are safe.

“if you are researching anything that can be applied to the industry, you will instead have 1 year of market ownership and first-mover advantage.”

I would like to disagree with you on that point. Given the very popular rise of https://rea.tools/, it appears the time to reverse engineer anything software based (up to maybe 80% or more?) could be down to minutes. With a recent example, some indie video game developers are not going to show off their video game until release as a few have been flipped and made it to market before the original developers have. Point being, a few moths of market ownership could be possible if llms can’t reverse it in any way.

Someone is going to make the case against using LLMs to reverse engineer software solely for commercial gain being as illegal as using guns for extortion.

Unless you’re able to get a patent on day one, once an idea is public potentially within the hour someone can make more money off of it and it’s not just your idea. Seems like a valid case to lock it down.

What a waste. All the anticipation that used to be built up with previews and looks into the dev process, now flushed down the toilet so billionaires can flood the web with crap and make more billions.

Do we want everyone who doesn’t know how to program a car to reprogram their car? I.e. I think there should be restrictions on frontier models to ensure safety of others.

In no time? What are you talking about? It’d take months even with llms for it to be fully polished and tested if they started now.

If anybody has the resources to do it, tho, they do

They have the means, they have the motivation

Lately they have fewer and fewer excuses not to

That is magic thinking and even religious

The reality is Apple has been working on rewriting bits and pieces in Swift.

That is essentially "in no time" on Apple's release cadence.

“ if you're mad about your problem being solved, maybe you weren't in it for the right reasons”, politicians/financial advisors/military members/etc… would like a word with you.

How would rust be generally higher level then go?

In the sense that a coder can express abstractions in Rust that he cannot in Go.

So in a sense, cobol is a higher level language then both due to PIC Clauses? I don’t follow this if higher level languages is solely based on syntactic sugar.

I agree that "if higher level languages is solely based on syntactic sugar", then Rust is not any higher level than Go at least if you ignore the fact that Rust gives the coder the ability to define macros (which I'm happy to do because I don't like macros much).

The abstractions that Rust can express that Go cannot that I find very attractive are mostly restrictions: they give the coder a way to commit to behaving a certain way throughout the codebase. Sort of like OpenBSD's pledge and unveil system calls, but part of the language, not part of the OS. Of course the coder can back out of the commitment by removing the declarations that produced the commitment.

In general, any elaborate type system in any language (such as Rust has) can be fruitfully considered a way for a coder to impose restrictions on himself and any other coders editing the codebase for the benefit of anyone trying to understand the codebase.