@btuftin @EUCommission AI techniques, which are far more diverse and older than the currently hyped LLMs that are frequently presented as representative of "AI", are used to enable nearly every part of modern life, and have been for decades. Not investing in it would be like not investing into an alternative for AWS to avoid creating another e-commerce giant. Although your caution may be well justified, let's also be cautious not to let big tech companies claim the entire foundational field.

@rivm Ik dacht altijd dat elke wasbeurt van synthetische stoffen veel microplastic deed verspreiden. Aangezien u het heeft over "eerste wasbeurten", kan ik hieruit opmaken dat de hoeveelheid die vrij komt na de eerste wasbeurten snel afneemt?

@EUCommission Very nice!

@ww @EUCommission @jesterchen In the context of national (and continental) security I'd still welcome significant broad investment in AI as a security necessity. Few industries/fields could still function without it, making it a vital resource. Not investing would keep a reliance on foreign providers whose interests may be misaligned. With regard to the article you linked specifically I'm more cautious. It feels like a higher risk to go wrong, but I don't know enough to truly judge.

@jesterchen @ww @EUCommission You may enjoy some optimism in this regard! AI is very broad (and all of it needs investment and compute), and has been around for decades. The research community is very active with humanitarian causes (e.g., groups working on climate change, covid, disaster response). Moreover, organisations such as ESA and national space agencies extensively use AI techniques, whose results inform policy decisions on, e.g., environmental protection. It is making things better :)