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

U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#451

Post by tiahura »

swiftcoder wrote: post #355
tiahura wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel the same way about FDA approvals? I mean, it seems like common sense - a limited beta test before widespread rollout. I'm not convinced they'll ever come up with a good framework for dealing with the cyber & bio issues, but getting triggered by a beta test rollout seems overboard.

The difference is that FDA approvals are a well-defined process with specific and actionable criteria for the release of a new product. Whereas this is the administration running on vibes and favouritism

I'm not going to defend the administration on most things, but your characterization isn't entirely fair. The record seems to suggest that the administration deferred to Amazon and the NSA, which seems sensible.

Perhaps you can fault them with not coming up with an objective framework earlier, but that's a different criticism.

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#454

Post by jenniferhooley »

JeremyNT wrote: post #418
jenniferhooley wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt like it was about 10X better at "pretty" but straightforward 1 shot'ish type tasks. Not so different for complex and specific tasks in real code-bases. Why do you say it was a lot better, what type of tasks were you testing it on?

> I felt like it was about 10X better at "pretty" but straightforward 1 shot'ish type tasks. Not so different for complex and specific tasks in real code-bases. What metric are you using for "better" here? If I've got a straightforward task GPT 5.5 is going to 1shot it anyway.

Let's say we're prototyping an interactive tree (this is totally made up, but you get the idea):

Take this data input and convert it to a Sugiyama-style tree with hand-drawn feeling lines connecting the nodes. We need the ability to activate a random subset of nodes with a paint splash. The whole thing should feel organic, incorporating small motion effects. As the nodes are activated, the edges should look like a hand-drawn painting effect drawing toward the node, and then SPLASH onto the end node as it changes from black to deep red. The background should utilize a muted paper color, and we must adhere to this color palette for all elements (PALETTE).

...then back-and-forth 10 prompts or so to get the prototype I was looking for. Comparing these types of things between Fable and Opus, something like this would be quite a bit less glitchy, prettier, and closer to the quick prototyping I needed than what I got with Opus 4.8.

Now, when I went deep into a complex codebase to fix a small issue or optimization that spanned many files and was fairly unique from anything in the training data, I didn't really see any noticeable difference between Fable and Opus 4.8.

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#456

Post by grim_io »

kgeist wrote: post #386
varispeed wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That until it becomes illegal to have or use open source models without approval and licence from government. With more talks about on device scanning, this could be easily plumbed in. If OS detects there is open source model, it could brick your device or alert authorities. Then next step will be limiting what operating system you can install. Likely only those where you cannot remove client side scanning.

I wonder how you can reliably detect an open source model though. It can be stored in any binary format, and the weights can be modified slightly so that the float values are completely different while the network works the same. The binary that runs it can be obfuscated as well. Maybe the hardware could detect common LLM inference patterns at runtime? That would probably produce many false positives.

You don't need a blacklist.

Maintaining a blessed whitelist is the way to go.

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#458

Post by api »

razighter777 wrote: post #135

I hope this doesn't become the new norm where government becomes the bottleneck for innovation in the AI space. It's worrying that with no formal and transparent policy framework that the government will be picking winners and losers and stifling innovation. There's been no public policy, executive order, legislation, or otherwise on this, I wonder if anyone has filed FOIA requests for these decisions or the conversa…

The big companies want this. It's a moat for them, a way to keep competitors (especially overseas) out of the US market.

They might try to extend it to downloadable open weight models, but honestly they might not even bother with that. The goal is to keep people from competing on lucrative contracts or the hosting market.

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#459

Post by ajmurmann »

stanac wrote: post #401
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #246

> Only companies approved by the government will get access. There is no process for individual users to get access to the new model. I knew the time would come when individuals on personal subscriptions get the short end of the stick. Didn't think it would come so soon. I hope we're not too badly deprecated in the months to come. Looks like I've got to improve my DeepSeek workflows.

For personal use I don't care if I get access to it. Tokens are becoming too expensive. I am using Chinese models. What worries me is that my company may never get access. I work for a well known US company, but from Europe, we also have developers in Mexico. I can only guess US gov will take this into account when deciding who gets to use the new models. Even worse than not getting access is getting fired. Since les…

Even the subscriptions are too expensive?
Post reply on HN