Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

finance.yahoo.com

521–530 of 845 posts

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#521
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why this is associated with fascism specifically, and not any other form of government which has high levels of oligarchical corruption (like North Korea, Soviet Russia, etc). I am not saying you’re wrong, but please educate me why is this form of corruption/cronyism is unique to fascism?

It might be basic, but I found the Wikipedia article to be a good place to start: > An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[35] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but…

It's rather amusing reading the link on dirigisme given the context of its alleged implication. [1] A word which I, and suspect most, have never heard before.

---

The term emerged in the post-World War II era to describe the economic policies of France which included substantial state-directed investment, the use of indicative economic planning to supplement the market mechanism and the establishment of state enterprises in strategic domestic sectors. It coincided with both the period of substantial economic and demographic growth, known as the Trente Glorieuses which followed the war, and the slowdown beginning with the 1973 oil crisis.

The term has subsequently been used to classify other economies that pursued similar policies, such as Canada, Japan, the East Asian tiger economies of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan; and more recently the economy of the People's Republic of China (PRC) after its economic reforms,[2] Malaysia, Indonesia[3][4] and India before the opening of its economy in 1991.[5][6][7]

---

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#522
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI lobbied for restrictive rules, and now they want an "out" but only for themselves. Absolute naked regulatory capture.

Also textbook Fascism. Trump should have a Most Favored Corporate status, each corporation in a vertical can compete for favor and the one that does gets to be "teacher's pet" when it comes to exemptions, contracts, trade deals, priority in resource right access, etc.

Like Most Favoured Nation:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#523

I hate this game. I hate that Sam Altman publicly supported Trump (both financially and by showing up). Maybe I hate that he "had" to do this for the sake of his company, or maybe I hate that he _didn't_ have to do it and is a hypocrite. Maybe I just hate how easily laws can be shaped by $1M and a few nice words. Either way, I hate that it worked.

centralising power never works well for the good of society

Interesting way to put it after seeing a very specific "centralizing of power", that being the people with the most capital making the decisions.

Why would centralizing power in a different way(e.x. democratically) not lead to a different outcome than centralizing power in the way we do now?

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "moat" is a fine business term for what it relates to, and most moats are innocuous: * The secret formula for Coke * ASML's technology * The "Gucci" brand * Apple's network effects These are genuine competitive advantages in the market. Regulatory moats and other similar things are an assault on the free market. Moats in general are not.

Based on your examples (which did genuinely make me question my assertion), it seems that patents and exclusivity deals are a major part of moat development, as are pricing games and rampant acquisitions. Apple's network effects are anti-compeitive creating vendor lock-in, which allows them to coerce customers. I generally defend Apple. But they are half anti-competitive (coerce customers), half competitive (earn cus…

Patents are state-sanctioned monopolies. That is their explicit purpose. And for all the "shoulders of giants" and "science is a collective effort" arguments, none of them can explain why no Chinese company (a jurisdiction that does not respect Western patents) can do what ASML does. They have the money and the expertise, but somehow they don't have the technology.

Also, the Gucci brand does not have lawyers. The Gucci brand is a name, a logo, and an aesthetic. Kering S.A. (owners of Gucci), enforces that counterfeit Gucci products don't show up. The designers at Kering spend a lot of effort coming up with Gucci-branded products, and they generally seem to have the pulse of a certain sector of the market.

The analysis of Coke's supply chain is wrong. The supply chain Coke uses is pretty run-of-the-mill, and I'm pretty sure that aside from the syrup (with the aforementioned secret formula), they actually outsource most of their manufacturing. They have good scale, but past ~100 million cans, I'm not sure you get many economies of scale in soda. That's why my local supermarket chain can offer "cola" that doesn't quite taste like Coke for cheaper than Coke. You could argue that the brand and the marketing are the moat, but the idea that Coke has a supply chain management advantage (let alone a moat over this) is laughable.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#525
post #14

Tell you what, set up a Federal level disclosure process online of all the copyright protected works used in training OpenAI for the creators / rights holders to get equity (out of the pockets of the C-Suite and Board) via claiming their due, and we’ll take you seriously. All the profit and none of the liability is Coward Capitalism.

this is a misread. it's still unclear whether use of copyrighted works to train LLMs falls under fair use but, with current laws, the answer is probably yes. you may not like that but, even if it changes, existing models were trained under existing law. also what liability do you expect them to assume? they want to offer models while saying "to use these, you must agree we don't have liability for their outputs." if…

> with current laws, the answer is probably yes

Citation needed, or at least some reasoning. The answer to "is this fair use" can't be "it's fair use because it's fair use"

> also what liability do you expect them to assume

The same liability anybody does for distributing copyright works without a license? Why are they not liable if it turns out the stuff they've been distributing and making people pay for was content they didn't own the license to distribute?

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current regime is in a fascist power grab and you're both-sidsing some random-ass second lady from a generation ago? Yeah wonder why we can't have effective government. > Let’s just not give the government any more power in our lives than necessary. Let's stop giving corporations all of the power and get a government that actually works for us.

It doesn’t matter. You should never trust the government with more power than absolutely necessary. Because eventually, the other side will do something you don’t like. This is the government people voted for. The government has a “monopoly on violence”. No corporation can force you to do anything, take away your freedom (the US has the highest incarceration rate of any democracy) or your property (see civil forfeitu…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current regime is in a fascist power grab and you're both-sidsing some random-ass second lady from a generation ago? Yeah wonder why we can't have effective government. > Let’s just not give the government any more power in our lives than necessary. Let's stop giving corporations all of the power and get a government that actually works for us.

It doesn’t matter. You should never trust the government with more power than absolutely necessary. Because eventually, the other side will do something you don’t like. This is the government people voted for. The government has a “monopoly on violence”. No corporation can force you to do anything, take away your freedom (the US has the highest incarceration rate of any democracy) or your property (see civil forfeitu…

> No corporation can force you to do anything, take away your freedom (the US has the highest incarceration rate of any democracy) or your property (see civil forfeiture). I can much more easily avoid a corporation than the government.

Avoid Tesla, and give me the steps you follow.

> Because eventually, the other side will do something you don’t like.

Yeah they might do equally egregious things like:

1) staging a fascist takeover of the government

2) a powerless idiot's idiot wife might dislike a music genre 30 years ago

The problem isn't government, it's a populace that is alergic to useful government.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "moat" is a fine business term for what it relates to, and most moats are innocuous: * The secret formula for Coke * ASML's technology * The "Gucci" brand * Apple's network effects These are genuine competitive advantages in the market. Regulatory moats and other similar things are an assault on the free market. Moats in general are not.

I'm with you except for that last one. Innovation provides a moat that also benefits the consumer. In contrast, network effects don't seem to provide any benefit. They're just a landscape feature that can be taken advantage of by the incumbent to make competition more difficult. I'm hardly the only one to think this way, hence regulation such as data portability in the EU.

I agree with you in general, but there are network effects at Apple that are helpful to the consumer. For example, iphone-mac integration makes things better for owners of both, and Apple can internally develop protocols like their "bump to share a file" protocol much faster than they can as part of an industry consortium. Both of these are network effects that are beneficial to the consumer.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#529

I know a lot of people will hate on things like this, but the reality is they are right that guardrails only serve to hurt us in the long run, at least at this pivotal point in time. I don't like Trump personally as a caveat. Yes it is a fact they did build themselves up on top of mountains of copyrighted material, and that AI has a lot of potential to do harm, but if they are forced to stop or slow down foreign acto…

Can the same argument not be made for forced labour?

Is the US not lowering it's capacity to innovate and grow it's economy by preventing the use of forced labour(even in other countries)? Why should these "guardrails" stay in place if the argument is "the reality is they are right that guardrails only serve to hurt us in the long run, at least at this pivotal point in time"?

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#530

>> In the proposal, OpenAI also said the U.S. needs “a copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” and on “preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.” Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models, with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited in this way, while labs in China are not.

[flagged]

[dead]
Post reply on HN