| ▲ | quietbritishjim an hour ago | |
Sovereign capability just means that no foreign government can pull the plug. Who cares where it was copied from? If it were somehow legal for a company to provide MS Office (not a clone) fully in the UK with no control from Microsoft, that would also count as a sovereign capability, even though none of the code was written in the uk. Maybe that's not how you like the term to be used but it's widely used that way and widely understood. | ||
| ▲ | timruffles a minute ago | parent [-] | |
> Sovereign capability just means that no foreign government can pull the plug OK, fair enough on 'pull the plug ~instantly'. But models and chips age fast. If another country can stop you getting new models and chips, this means you're sovereign in state-of-the-art AI for only a window of a year or two (maybe this will widen if model progress tails off). If it is a short window, strategically, that doesn't seem worth much given the timelines of: a) inter-state conflict, or trade wars b) cold-start time to be able to make your own models and chips > Maybe that's not how you like the term to be used but it's widely used that way and widely understood. Noted. But as a data-point, the audience at the event I mentioned (various AI builders and founders) made it clear from their questions to the speaker that the 'sovereign' that sov/ai was aiming at was hollow, for exactly the reasons I've stated. | ||