5 ms·

If you want LLMs to have knowledge of the Norwegian language, wouldn't the most obvious thing to do be to build a good training dataset and make the dataset wid

If you want LLMs to have knowledge of the Norwegian language, wouldn't the most obvious thing to do be to build a good training dataset and make the dataset widely available? Why go to the expense of training your own model, especially when it will be inferior to state of the art models.

electroglyph 4mo ago
absolutely. somebody online was wanting an LLM with Georgian language support, and that's exactly what i suggested: start digitizing Georgian text.
embedding-shape 4mo ago
Yeah, was about to comment that too, instead of training a new model and new weights exclusively for Norwegian (and expecting/wanting every other small/medium-sized country to do the same) which seems infinity harder, they could have made high quality transcriptions and translations of the stories currently described only in Norwegian into English, and making it all public. I guess there still would be a worry that it'd be counted as "less important" compared to other history, news and culture about other countries.
- makeitdouble 4mo ago
  > high quality transcriptions and translations of the stories currently described only in Norwegian into English You make it sound like an easier task than training an LLM. I'd argue it's not obvious, and would assume the contrary.
  - embedding-shape 4mo ago
    Yes, why wouldn't it be easier to transcribe and translate, skills humanity had for centuries, compared to LLMs that we've only learnt to build these last few years, and even require a frikken computer to do? Of course one of these is harder than the other...
    - makeitdouble 4mo ago
      Look at it from this lens: translating and transcribing these stories hasn't happened for the centuries they existed, while as you point out the skills where always there. In contrast LLMs have been here for a few years at most and everyone and their dogs are trying to get in on the "race". With absolutely no insight into why, which one has better odds to happen first is obvious to me.
      - embedding-shape 4mo ago
        Sure, it isn't as "hot" to translate stuff as it used to be some hundreds of years ago, and building LLMs surely is "hot" today, I don't doubt more people are attempting to build LLMs today than translating huge datasets, especially if we narrow the two to exclusively "In Norwegian". Having insights into both translations, transcriptions and attempting to build LLMs myself, I'm fairly sure which effort would be successful first, regardless of how many attempt it first.
- vintermann 4mo ago
  Copyrights and statutes don't allow them to do that. The mandate of the National Library maybe permits them to make an LLM through (though I won't at all be surprised if someone sues them anyway).
- pjc50 4mo ago
  Oddly enough, my wife was recently involved in a project to translate historical crime novels from Norwegian; since all the available late 20th century Scandinavian crime novels have already been translated and turned into popular TV series, the plan was to go further back. Into the 1930s. The first cut was done with LLMs, but encountered the problem that (a) Norwegian itself has changed noticeably since then, in both major dialects, and (b) the machine translation deteriorated on large sections, resulting in entirely missing paragraphs and pages in a few places. Not to mention the usual translation issues (what police role does lensman map to?) and localisation (to what extent should the casual antisemitism be left in or removed?) Translation is never a bijective process. It's never quite the same experience in translation as it is in the original, due to the cultural differences between reader and writer. Larger in this case because 1930s Norway is very different even from 2020s Norway. Ultimately this was not a success due to marketing difficulties; it is very difficult to get a book noticed. ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-Chariot-Nordic-Crime-Library/dp/8293097760 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-Chariot-Nordic-Crime-Library/d... )
  - embedding-shape 4mo ago
    Sorry if I was unclear, I didn't want to give the impression I think translations or even transcriptions in some cases is easy, or without problems, or not painstakingly time-consuming, it very much is. I just think building a LLM from scratch is ever harder, with more potential problems that are harder to solve, more time-consuming and even more resource-intensive.
    - jononor 4mo ago
      It would require an investment, but those will pay dividends later, as it becomes easier to train LLMs on/for Norwegian. If we need to translate everything to English we might as well just drop using Norwegian altogether. Practically everyone speaks English fluently already...
      - embedding-shape 4mo ago
        > as it becomes easier to train LLMs on/for Norwegian Why would it be easier in the future? The advances we see with LLMs today require a huge amount of data, and it's getting hard getting the amount of data just using any language, I'm having a hard time seeing how it'd get easier for Norwegians to build their own LLM, unless they seriously start to ramp up how much Norwegian content they're putting out. > If we need to translate everything to English we might as well just drop using Norwegian altogether. Practically everyone speaks English fluently already... Yeah I mean with that black and white perspective you can pretty much do anything and it won't matter for anything :) I think for the rest of us, what we speak daily and what we rely on professionally, can differ, and that's OK. But maybe this is just my broken Swedish mind being so used to using English professionally but then conversing in Spanish outside of work daily, YMMV.
a2128 4mo ago
What incentives does OpenAI have to make sure the AI actually works well with Norwegian beyond capturing a (small) Norwegian market? What incentives do they have to take Norwegian values into consideration, or to preserve Norwegian culture into the future? The matter is also a question of national sovereignty, so to simply release the data and nicely ask foreign companies to solve the problem for you, would be a fool's move
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4mo ago
  It's also a bit funny because Norway definitely has enough money to hire a team of Anthropic's best to go out there and train them a model that does whatever they want. They probably have enough money to fund their own Anthropic competitor.
  - joe_mamba 4mo ago
    >They probably have enough money to fund their own Anthropic competitor. Which is bizarre to me Norway doesn't have a booming tech sector with all hat wealth fund acting as the biggest VC. They instead use their wealth fund to invest in US's tech sector. Baffling.
    - schubidubiduba 4mo ago
      There's only so much you can do with 5 million people. Especially in a field where network effects amd scale matter a lot.
      - joe_mamba 4mo ago
        Finland has same population as Norway, has way less money, but has 3x the scaleups. Even bigger difference with vs Netherlands. Even Norway themselves admit they're the underperformers of the Nordics. https://skywlkr.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TechScaleupNorway_2018Report.pdf https://skywlkr.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TechScaleupNor... So blaming population is a cheap excuse that doesn't hold water. Especially that you can always import the skilled people you lack, when you have virtually unlimited money and some of the highest standards of living in the world.
black_puppydog 4mo ago
I task GPT/Claude with researching stuff that pertains to very specific cultural or legal aspects in French politics, on a daily basis. Even though French is a way more common language globally than Norwegian, these models still haven't figured out that, no matter the language I myself speak to them (German or English depending on my mood) their web searches need to be done in French to return reasonable results. I have to remind them every time lest they come back with "uh, didn't find anything relevant, here take some hallucinations instead." So, given the anglo-centrism of current models, my confidence in American providers giving any shits about non-american users/use-cases is pretty low. And lower the smaller the language community is.
- hombre_fatal 4mo ago
  Aren’t you already using English in the LLM convo? Telling the model to use French for research or to find resources in French seems like a reasonable step. If you’re doing this on a daily basis, then you should have an AGENTS.md that accumulates directional instructions like this. This is how you use the tool correctly. There’s this weird pattern I’ve noticed where people expect LLMs to require zero effort or proficiency on their part, and when the LLM isn’t perfect without it, of course it wasn’t; LLMs suck.
  - coliveira 4mo ago
    The issue is that French, Italian, African, Japanese people shouldn't have the inconvenience of instructing the LLM tool to get the basic facts about their own culture. They should use an LLM that has already been trained like that by default. Nobody has obligation to use a tool that thinks it is talking to an American. If I go to Google for example I want to get facts about my own country in my own language.
    - instagraham 4mo ago
      >Nobody has obligation to use a tool that thinks it is talking to an American Very very emphatic agree from my end, thanks.
    - 4mo ago
_cs2017_ 4mo ago
> Why go to the expense... Answer: idiocy of decision makers and the desire to get resources by those who created the proposal. I assumed Scandinavia has better decision processes but apparently I was wrong.
vintermann 4mo ago
Permissions, probably. Copyrights and statutes. Knowing the librarians, unfortunately the prestige of their job is more vested in denying you access than giving you access. I mean it's their job to give people access to information, and they certainly do, but the mark of a professional, in their eyes, is guarding information. It's much more embarrassing for them professionally to give too much access than too little. LLM training gives them a "respectable" way of bypassing that and give the world their information (which, in fairness, they probably all really want to do if they could).
- vasco 4mo ago
  If they wanted to they all have scanners and access to information on how to create torrents. Setting the information free isn't complicated, so it'd seem most of them, do not want to.
  - vintermann 4mo ago
    Where do you seed a 60 petabyte torrent? I'm sure some choice cuts of what individuals feel is important have made it to Anna's, but I don't think refusal to go on a full data liberation spree is evidence they don't care.
blks 4mo ago
Because state of the art models are owned and controlled by foreign agents.
gizajob 4mo ago
Because you have so much money you don’t know what to do with it any more.
onion2k 4mo ago
wouldn't the most obvious thing to do be to build a good training dataset and make the dataset widely available? Only if you believe other people will value that enough to expend the effort necessary to use it. If you believe other people will see it as low value and ignore it then you'd be better off doing the training yourself in order to guarantee it happens. There's also a secondary benefit that your team doing the work will learn some useful skills while they do it.
fransje26 4mo ago
> Why go to the expense of training your own model, especially when it will be inferior to state of the art models. Uuh.. No? Especially of the training data, as in this case, is of better quality.

electroglyph 4mo ago

absolutely. somebody online was wanting an LLM with Georgian language support, and that's exactly what i suggested: start digitizing Georgian text.

embedding-shape 4mo ago

Yeah, was about to comment that too, instead of training a new model and new weights exclusively for Norwegian (and expecting/wanting every other small/medium-sized country to do the same) which seems infinity harder, they could have made high quality transcriptions and translations of the stories currently described only in Norwegian into English, and making it all public. I guess there still would be a worry that it'd be counted as "less important" compared to other history, news and culture about other countries.

makeitdouble 4mo ago
> high quality transcriptions and translations of the stories currently described only in Norwegian into English You make it sound like an easier task than training an LLM. I'd argue it's not obvious, and would assume the contrary.
- embedding-shape 4mo ago
  Yes, why wouldn't it be easier to transcribe and translate, skills humanity had for centuries, compared to LLMs that we've only learnt to build these last few years, and even require a frikken computer to do? Of course one of these is harder than the other...
  - makeitdouble 4mo ago
    Look at it from this lens: translating and transcribing these stories hasn't happened for the centuries they existed, while as you point out the skills where always there. In contrast LLMs have been here for a few years at most and everyone and their dogs are trying to get in on the "race". With absolutely no insight into why, which one has better odds to happen first is obvious to me.
    - embedding-shape 4mo ago
      Sure, it isn't as "hot" to translate stuff as it used to be some hundreds of years ago, and building LLMs surely is "hot" today, I don't doubt more people are attempting to build LLMs today than translating huge datasets, especially if we narrow the two to exclusively "In Norwegian". Having insights into both translations, transcriptions and attempting to build LLMs myself, I'm fairly sure which effort would be successful first, regardless of how many attempt it first.
vintermann 4mo ago
Copyrights and statutes don't allow them to do that. The mandate of the National Library maybe permits them to make an LLM through (though I won't at all be surprised if someone sues them anyway).
pjc50 4mo ago
Oddly enough, my wife was recently involved in a project to translate historical crime novels from Norwegian; since all the available late 20th century Scandinavian crime novels have already been translated and turned into popular TV series, the plan was to go further back. Into the 1930s. The first cut was done with LLMs, but encountered the problem that (a) Norwegian itself has changed noticeably since then, in both major dialects, and (b) the machine translation deteriorated on large sections, resulting in entirely missing paragraphs and pages in a few places. Not to mention the usual translation issues (what police role does lensman map to?) and localisation (to what extent should the casual antisemitism be left in or removed?) Translation is never a bijective process. It's never quite the same experience in translation as it is in the original, due to the cultural differences between reader and writer. Larger in this case because 1930s Norway is very different even from 2020s Norway. Ultimately this was not a success due to marketing difficulties; it is very difficult to get a book noticed. ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-Chariot-Nordic-Crime-Library/dp/8293097760 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-Chariot-Nordic-Crime-Library/d... )
- embedding-shape 4mo ago
  Sorry if I was unclear, I didn't want to give the impression I think translations or even transcriptions in some cases is easy, or without problems, or not painstakingly time-consuming, it very much is. I just think building a LLM from scratch is ever harder, with more potential problems that are harder to solve, more time-consuming and even more resource-intensive.
  - jononor 4mo ago
    It would require an investment, but those will pay dividends later, as it becomes easier to train LLMs on/for Norwegian. If we need to translate everything to English we might as well just drop using Norwegian altogether. Practically everyone speaks English fluently already...
    - embedding-shape 4mo ago
      > as it becomes easier to train LLMs on/for Norwegian Why would it be easier in the future? The advances we see with LLMs today require a huge amount of data, and it's getting hard getting the amount of data just using any language, I'm having a hard time seeing how it'd get easier for Norwegians to build their own LLM, unless they seriously start to ramp up how much Norwegian content they're putting out. > If we need to translate everything to English we might as well just drop using Norwegian altogether. Practically everyone speaks English fluently already... Yeah I mean with that black and white perspective you can pretty much do anything and it won't matter for anything :) I think for the rest of us, what we speak daily and what we rely on professionally, can differ, and that's OK. But maybe this is just my broken Swedish mind being so used to using English professionally but then conversing in Spanish outside of work daily, YMMV.

a2128 4mo ago

What incentives does OpenAI have to make sure the AI actually works well with Norwegian beyond capturing a (small) Norwegian market? What incentives do they have to take Norwegian values into consideration, or to preserve Norwegian culture into the future? The matter is also a question of national sovereignty, so to simply release the data and nicely ask foreign companies to solve the problem for you, would be a fool's move

SOLAR_FIELDS 4mo ago
It's also a bit funny because Norway definitely has enough money to hire a team of Anthropic's best to go out there and train them a model that does whatever they want. They probably have enough money to fund their own Anthropic competitor.
- joe_mamba 4mo ago
  >They probably have enough money to fund their own Anthropic competitor. Which is bizarre to me Norway doesn't have a booming tech sector with all hat wealth fund acting as the biggest VC. They instead use their wealth fund to invest in US's tech sector. Baffling.
  - schubidubiduba 4mo ago
    There's only so much you can do with 5 million people. Especially in a field where network effects amd scale matter a lot.
    - joe_mamba 4mo ago
      Finland has same population as Norway, has way less money, but has 3x the scaleups. Even bigger difference with vs Netherlands. Even Norway themselves admit they're the underperformers of the Nordics. https://skywlkr.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TechScaleupNorway_2018Report.pdf https://skywlkr.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TechScaleupNor... So blaming population is a cheap excuse that doesn't hold water. Especially that you can always import the skilled people you lack, when you have virtually unlimited money and some of the highest standards of living in the world.

black_puppydog 4mo ago

I task GPT/Claude with researching stuff that pertains to very specific cultural or legal aspects in French politics, on a daily basis. Even though French is a way more common language globally than Norwegian, these models still haven't figured out that, no matter the language I myself speak to them (German or English depending on my mood) their web searches need to be done in French to return reasonable results. I have to remind them every time lest they come back with "uh, didn't find anything relevant, here take some hallucinations instead." So, given the anglo-centrism of current models, my confidence in American providers giving any shits about non-american users/use-cases is pretty low. And lower the smaller the language community is.

hombre_fatal 4mo ago
Aren’t you already using English in the LLM convo? Telling the model to use French for research or to find resources in French seems like a reasonable step. If you’re doing this on a daily basis, then you should have an AGENTS.md that accumulates directional instructions like this. This is how you use the tool correctly. There’s this weird pattern I’ve noticed where people expect LLMs to require zero effort or proficiency on their part, and when the LLM isn’t perfect without it, of course it wasn’t; LLMs suck.
- coliveira 4mo ago
  The issue is that French, Italian, African, Japanese people shouldn't have the inconvenience of instructing the LLM tool to get the basic facts about their own culture. They should use an LLM that has already been trained like that by default. Nobody has obligation to use a tool that thinks it is talking to an American. If I go to Google for example I want to get facts about my own country in my own language.
  - instagraham 4mo ago
    >Nobody has obligation to use a tool that thinks it is talking to an American Very very emphatic agree from my end, thanks.
  - 4mo ago

_cs2017_ 4mo ago

> Why go to the expense... Answer: idiocy of decision makers and the desire to get resources by those who created the proposal. I assumed Scandinavia has better decision processes but apparently I was wrong.

vintermann 4mo ago

Permissions, probably. Copyrights and statutes. Knowing the librarians, unfortunately the prestige of their job is more vested in denying you access than giving you access. I mean it's their job to give people access to information, and they certainly do, but the mark of a professional, in their eyes, is guarding information. It's much more embarrassing for them professionally to give too much access than too little. LLM training gives them a "respectable" way of bypassing that and give the world their information (which, in fairness, they probably all really want to do if they could).

vasco 4mo ago
If they wanted to they all have scanners and access to information on how to create torrents. Setting the information free isn't complicated, so it'd seem most of them, do not want to.
- vintermann 4mo ago
  Where do you seed a 60 petabyte torrent? I'm sure some choice cuts of what individuals feel is important have made it to Anna's, but I don't think refusal to go on a full data liberation spree is evidence they don't care.

blks 4mo ago

Because state of the art models are owned and controlled by foreign agents.

gizajob 4mo ago

Because you have so much money you don’t know what to do with it any more.

onion2k 4mo ago

wouldn't the most obvious thing to do be to build a good training dataset and make the dataset widely available? Only if you believe other people will value that enough to expend the effort necessary to use it. If you believe other people will see it as low value and ignore it then you'd be better off doing the training yourself in order to guarantee it happens. There's also a secondary benefit that your team doing the work will learn some useful skills while they do it.

fransje26 4mo ago

> Why go to the expense of training your own model, especially when it will be inferior to state of the art models. Uuh.. No? Especially of the training data, as in this case, is of better quality.