Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#271

Post by rvz »

O̶p̶e̶n̶AI.com is not your friend and are essentially against open source with this regulatory capture and using AI safety as a scapegoat.

Why do you think they are attempting to release a so-called 'open source' [0] and 'compliant' AI model to wipe out other competing open source AI models, to label them to others as unlicensed and dangerous? They know that transparent, open source AI models is a threat. Hence why they are doing this.

They do not have a moat against open source, unless they use regulations that suit them against their competitors using open source models.

O̶p̶e̶n̶AI.com is a scam. On top of the Worldcoin crypto scam that Sam Altman is also selling as a antidote against the unstoppable generative AI hype to verify human eyeballs on the blockchain with an orb. I am not joking. [1] [2]

[0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-readies-new-open-s...

[1] https://worldcoin.org/blog/engineering/humanness-in-the-age-...

[2] https://worldcoin.org/blog/worldcoin/designing-orb-universal...

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#272

Post by varelse »

lm28469 wrote: post #38
srslack wrote: post #9

Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…

100% this, I don't get how even on this website people are so clueless. Give them a semi human sounding puppet and they think skynet is coming tomorrow. If we learned anything from the past few months is how gullible people are, wishful thinking is a hell of a drug

[dead]

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#273

Post by Robotbeat »

vi2837 wrote: post #249
candiddevmike wrote: post #174

I'm sad that we've lost the battle with calling these things AI. LLMs aren't AI, and I don't think they're even a path towards AI.

Yeah, what is named AI for now, is not AI at all.

AI doesn’t imply it’s general intelligence.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#274

Post by Barrin92 »

brenns10 wrote: post #234

Reminds me of SBF calling for crypto regulations while running FTX. Being seen as friendly to regulations is great for optics compared to being belligerently anti-regulation. You can appear responsible and benevolent, and get more opportunity to weaken regulation by controlling more of the narrative. And hey, if you get end up getting some regulatory capture making competition harder, that's a great benefit too. Open…

Neither is it an indication of bad intentions and I don't even think SBF was dishonest, his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind.

This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#275

Post by tessierashpool »

kubota wrote: post #205
elil17 wrote: post #129

This is the message I shared with my senator (edited to remove information which could identify me). I hope others will send similar messages. Dear Senator [X], I am an engineer working for [major employer in the state]. I am extremely concerned about the message that Sam Altman is sharing with the Judiciary committee today. Altman wants to create regulatory roadblocks to developing AI. My company produces AI-enabled…

You lost me at "While AI regulation is important" - nope, congress does not need to regulate AI.

"important" does not mean "good." if you are in the field of AI, AI regulation is absolutely important, whether good or bad.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#276

Post by darth_avocado »

What does licensing achieve? Will there be requirements if you build AI outside of US? If so, how do you regulate it? They can’t realistically think this will stop ai research in other countries like China. All of this is a very I’ll thought through corporate attempt to build moats that will inevitably backfire.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#277

Post by reaperman »

mutatio wrote: post #264
skilled wrote: post #227

OpenAI willing to bend the knee quite deep. If they want to do licensing and filtering and do that without fundamentally bricking the model, then by all means go ahead.

It's not bending the knee, that's how they want it to be perceived, but what's really happening is that they're trying to pull up the ladder.

It'll be a temporary 10-year moat at best. Eventually consumer-grade hardware will be exaflop-scale.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#278

Post by paulcole »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #250

Is this just to put up a barrier to entry to new entrants in the market so they can have a government enforced monopoly?

Also that he knows how inefficient and dumb government is. By the time the regulations are in place they won't matter one iota.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#280

Post by kelseyfrog »

a13o wrote: post #239
candiddevmike wrote: post #174

I'm sad that we've lost the battle with calling these things AI. LLMs aren't AI, and I don't think they're even a path towards AI.

I started at this perspective, but nobody could agree on the definition of the A, or the I; and also the G. So it wasn't a really rigorous technical term to begin with. Now that it's been corraled by sci-fi and marketers, we are free to come up with new metaphors for algorithms that reliably replace human effort. Metaphors which don't smuggle in all our ignorance about intelligence and personhood. I ended up feeling…

I've come to the same conclusion. AGI(and each separately) is better understood as a epistemological problem in the domain of social ontology rather than a category bestowable by AI/ML practitioners.

The reality is that our labeling of something as artificial, general, or intelligent is better understood as a social fact than a scientific fact - even if purely the role of operationalization of each of these is a free parameter in their respective groundings which makes it near useless when taking them as "scientifically" measurably qualities. Any scientist who assumes an operationalization without admitting such isn't doing science - they may as well be astrology at that point.

Post reply on HN