I don't know anything about this specific LLM thing but if it correctly uses the Nash bargaining optimiser then that won't happen.
This thing you point out is exactly why Nash demanded invariance under affine transformations in his solution. Using completely arbitrary units if I rank everything as having importance 1 million, that's exactly the same as ranking everything as having importance 1, and also the same as ranking everything as having importance 0.
The solution is only sensitive to diffences in the unitity function, not the actual values of the function. If you want to weight something very strongly in the Nash version of the game you also have to weight other things correspondingly weakly.
I would say almost exactly the opposite is happening. Academia generally publishes it's results relatively freely but academic AI research is largely being left in the dust by large corporations who do not find it in their interest to publicly describe the "magic dust" that makes their products work.
I agree that some published proofs are not as clear as they're supposed to be, but I disagree that formalizing things in computer-based proof checkers is the way forward there. Computer proof checking is cool, but its an augment to what we already do and not not a substitute for it.
The purpose of a published paper is to explain things to other humans, while that of a computer formalization is to explain things to computers. Just as it is generally not easy for a computer to understand a published proof, it is usually not easy for other mathematicians to understand the code you feed to Lean or whatever.
The stuff you need to focus on to get a computer to accept your proof is usually quite different to the stuff you want to focus on when explaining things to colleagues. Roughly speaking we care about why you're doing things, while the computer cares about the intricacies of what you're doing.
I quite strongly disagree with this. Mathematicians aren't rigourous just for the hell of it. We have examples where a lack of rigour caused a bunch of people to waste a bunch of time working of stuff that ultimately didn't work at all.
Part of the purpose of a maths degree is to teach the students the rigour required to be a mathematician. If you don't want to learn that rigour then thats completely fine, you can use physical or intuitive arguments, but the place to go and do that is in the physics or engineering departments.
I agree mathematicians would be wrong if they were forcing their rigour on physics students or whatever, but I think they're emphatically right to teach it to maths students.
> The EU (and the US federal government) simply shouldn't be able to do most of what they do
In my opinion this sentence straight up does not make sense. The EU and the US federal government are dramatically different, you can't even really compare their roles meaningfully. The EU is, and behaves like, a club of seperate individual nations. The US federal government is a real national government in ways the EU simply isn't.
Even restricting attention to the EU it doesn't even really make sense. Which part of the EU are you complaining about? You're writing this in response to a proposal from the EU commission, so I guess you're pissed with them, but the commission can't make its proposals into law without parliament voting on it and the European Council agreeing. The EU parliament is (overwhelmingly) unlikely to pass this proposal into law and the European Council also has big problems with it.
This proposal is essentially one country (Sweden) sending a particuarly idiotic comissioner (Ylva Johansson), and the rest of the EU apparatus resisting the shit she is trying to push.
To be fair that was just a rubber-stamping process to get the law back to the european parliament to be debated and discussed, where it was (rightfully) rejected. It had already been agreed (correctly, at a competitiveness meeting of the council) that it would go back to the parliament.
They sent it through the fisheries Commission because the board that had the responsibility for it wasn't due to meet for another 6 months.
I guess some people care deeply about the details of which commission sends the proposed legislation to the parliament to be debated & amended / rejected, but in reality I think it doesn't really matter. In either case the correct thing for the commission to do was send the legislation to the parliament.
As far as I am aware this is pretty far from accurate. Pretty much everything goes through the "Ordinary legislative procedure" where the comission proposes legislation and the parliament and council have to agree it (Codecision).
The council and commission can change stuff together without concent of parliament in very specialised areas (special legislative procedures), I think this only gets used for internal competion law and market regulation stuff.
In even more specialised areas the commission can change stuff on its own, as far as I know this is mostly restricted to agreeing trade deals and fixing specific tarrifs.
I can't comment on the corruption and alternative ways of pressuring MEPs. Those probably exist.
I don't think its a thing exclusive to conspiracy circles. Its natural for Americans to mentally model the EU as something like the US, with the EU representing the federal government and the individual countries acting like US states.
The reality is that that model is pretty innacurate, the EU has a lot less power than the US Federal governenment has. The EU still acts more like a club of individual nations than it does one overall government.
Because the EU doesn't really have much actual power to do anything that impacts normal citizens. Like the EU doesn't start criminal prosecutions or anything against people. If there is some crime you're being prosecuted for it's going to be your country's government that prosecutes you.
No one is really worried about the EU becoming some sort of Orwellian state because it isn't a state, it doesn't operate like that.
Edit: I should say that this shit also isn't going to pass the European Parliament, its just a proposal which is going to get voted down.
Its not exactly the same situation but I'm from the UK and live in Poland (because I'm a scientist and brexit happened). An enormous number of Polish people left to work all over Europe and the world since the end of communism, and I think its mostly been a massively good thing for Poland.
Most of the Polish people I know who lived abroad and have moved back to Poland have brought skills, often highly educated children, relatively large amounts of money, and what I would describe as an international forward thinking attitude (i.e. they aren't voting for PiS).
Its not inevitable that a lot of young people from the UK moving abroad is a bad thing for the UK, as eventually a bunch of them are going to come back.
That said all the flag waving bullshit I see the UK doing does put me off returning.
Deepmind was literally founded in the UK and is headquartered in London.
Comercially supported research is (in my opinion) relatively OK in Europe, its just that the big US tech companies are so big they'll just buy you if you do something sufficiently interesting.
According to the OECD (https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA#) the US spends about 18% of its GDP on healthcare while the UK spends about 12% of its (much lower per capita) GDP. Per captia the numbers are even more wild, the US spends about $12k per person per year while the UK spends about $4000.
While the UK could (and in my opinion should) spend rather more money on healthcare than it does, the NHS is actually spectacuarly efficient compared to the mess of private providers and insurance middlemen you have to deal with in the US.
It strongly depends on where you are - someone earning £50k in probably London is having a much better time than someone earning $50k in Silicon Valley, but if the $50k person is living in somewhere less ridiculous they might be better off.
This thing you point out is exactly why Nash demanded invariance under affine transformations in his solution. Using completely arbitrary units if I rank everything as having importance 1 million, that's exactly the same as ranking everything as having importance 1, and also the same as ranking everything as having importance 0.
The solution is only sensitive to diffences in the unitity function, not the actual values of the function. If you want to weight something very strongly in the Nash version of the game you also have to weight other things correspondingly weakly.