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

Policy on the AI Exponential

darioamodei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 280 posts

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#101

Post by kridsdale1 »

tetrisgm wrote: post #40

Honest question: is there a reason for the naming conventions for these models? Anything that makes it better than giving them names with model numbers, like “Claude 3” or such?

Yes.

Each of the nouns is a “size class” in literature. From small lines poem (haiku, sonnet) to larger story (fable) to very large story (opus) to culture-defining foundational (myth).

It’s a fun way to say how many parameters are in the model without revealing a number like 405B or 17B which isn’t really comparable vs other models.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#102

Post by scarmig »

iamniels wrote: post #20

I like that he comes up with new laws and regulations for AI companies. Can I suggest some more? - You shall not embed copyrighted material in your models. - You shall not bombard every little website in existence with 1 million scraping queries per day. - You shall not use your political influence to pump and dump your AI (or rocket?) company. - You shall not imperill the whole IT sector by buying all CPU and memory…

"We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction."

"Yeah, and quotas on web scrapers!"

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#103

Post by ed_balls »

kouteiheika wrote: post #18

> AI companies that develop advanced AI models must have strong security standards that protect their model weights So, basically, make open-weight models illegal. It's nice for Dario to come out and say this so explicitly.

"We Have No Moat, And Neither Does OpenAI"

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#104

Post by interestpiqued »

themafia wrote: post #5

> AI models have gone from barely being able to write a coherent line of code to writing most of the code at major AI companies. Gasoline has gone from barely being able to power stationary farm machines to now being the fuel that underpins our entire economy. So, great news all around, right? > which predict an exponential increase And was that actually delivered? Real question: If a model goes from 80% accurate to…

Yeah I’m lost by the constant use of “exponential”. What is the x and y axis when the talking heads say this?

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#105

Post by ofjcihen »

TobyTheCamel wrote: post #95
ofjcihen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

N+1. This is my experience and for the most part the people that I work with share the same feeling. A highly enthusiastic concussion enthusiast with 10 hands is how one person put it. These are people in different fields but highly accomplished so I’m feeling comfortable sharing their assessment.

You're talking quite statically though. I don't think anyone is worried about today's models being a serious threat, but next year's, three years' time? Just three years' ago these models were useful bumbling fools and it's hard to judge where on the S-curve we currently are. I'd rather be thinking about these issues in advance rather than waiting until the problem becomes real.

> I don't think anyone is worried about today's models being a serious threat

Fable is essentially bricked for my areas of interest (even being a member of the cybersecurity program). It seems like they’re attempting to sell regulatory capture under the guise of safety. That’s more of the point.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#106

Post by anothermathbozo »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #99
anothermathbozo wrote: post #36

> A wide range of pro-employment policy incentives can help to slow or reduce job displacement, including: wage insurance policies that compensate people when they have to take a lower-paying job, retention tax incentives to encourage employers not to make layoffs, workforce training grants, or infrastructure to facilitate matching of employers to employees to speed the rate of labor market adaptation. While the part…

> If this technology truly unlocks a holy panacea of productivity with a commensurate drop in employment then capital’s share of the national income can and should provide for a wider and deeper welfare state. This isn't guaranteed in the tax system as it exists today, because reinvestments into further growth are often treated as expenses which cancel out the income for tax purposes.

You’re conflating firm level taxable income with the national income.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#107

Post by david_shaw »

> A nation that possesses powerful AI facing one without it—or even facing one that is behind in AI by 3 years—could be the equivalent of an army of World War II Marines facing an army of medieval swordsmen.

This is a somewhat ironic take from someone who very publicly feuded with the US government about whether their AI could be used for waging war.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#108

Post by thayne »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #86
kingstnap wrote: post #60

Its hard to read the first half of this as anything other than regulatory capture propaganda. It really all ties together as: > AI has become a major commercial technology >Frontier AI models, like airplanes, should be required to go through technical testing and auditing, and their release should be blocked or reversed as a threat to public safety if they do not meet high standards of safety > AI companies that deve…

Can you explain how this is attempted regulatory capture? To start a lab now which can actually compete for the frontier (i.e. and pass the "Threshold of compute" needed to get regulated) a lab / company would need a ton of money. Surely a well funded operation of that kind can deal with the regulations.

For one thing, the financial barrier may not necessarily stay that high forever.

For another, such regulations could prevent a competitor from making the weights open for their model to try and disrupt the competition.

And finally, Amodei would no doubt want to be involved in designing the tests the AI needs to pass, and could (and likely would) design it in a way that Anthropic models would be able to pass easier than competing models.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#110

Post by TobyTheCamel »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #90
TobyTheCamel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first point is very reasonable, and I agree that that is something Dario would likely be more opposed to. However, my point isn't that I think Dario is our saviour who we should follow the every word of. As with everyone, his opinions should be filtered through the lens of his incentives. That said, I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction by many commenters to completely disregard the many important points he'…

You write well & HN is better when there are more well-written people on the opposite side of the consensus

Genuinely, thank you. This is very encouraging and makes me feel much better about commenting more going forwards.

The quality of discussion and prose on HN is just generally so high that it can feel quite a bit intimidating to jump in (in contrast to Reddit where I have no worries about commenting haha).

Post reply on HN