891–900 of 1001 posts
This isn’t just about AI: they do not want you to privately use computers at all, in a way that cannot be surveilled. They want to extinguish all forms of general purpose computing and restrict you to walled gardens of apps and all code written via AI with the government-in-the-middle. It will be illegal to write code by hand, only people with “bad intentions” do that, because otherwise, why not just use AI like a sa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as Europe is concerned they have recently signed up to the 'Pax Silica'[1] and willingly givrn the LLM space over to the US incumbents with buildtin legislation banning Chinese models and coperation with them. So EU will be a renter of the LLMs that the US allows them to use. In the long run OpenSource will dominate as it did in the DB(MySQL/Postgres)/ServerOS(Linux/BSDs) versus Proprietery rent seeking alts l…
europe2031.ai
> The Commission backs the Dutch [...]. The European position fragments before it has properly formed.
That the EU would, after recognizing AI's value, freely give up control of its few advantages to the US, despite of this being a conventional trade issue which the EU has experience with, seems like a very pessimistic assumption.
(I stopped reading after that part.)
> 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.
From the OpenAI press release: > We don’t believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default. It keeps the best tools from users, developers, enterprises, cyber defenders, and global partners who need them. We are taking this short-term step because we believe it is the strongest path to broader availability in the coming weeks, while we work with the Administration to develop the cybe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? This is the opposite of regulatory capture. Neither anthropic nor openai are getting to choose what happens with their models.
The other answers are also valid, but lest we not forget, Sam is openly a fascist supporter and is clearly in bed with the regime in that he funded 47's campaign and jumped in to rescue Hegseth's automated kill list with OpenAI's GPT when Anthropic refused. Furthermore they are likely operating on some kind of quid pro quo agreement even if it's not public knowledge, because that's how all this bribery stuff works. B…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nick Bostrom wondered aloud in Superintelligence (2014) why states would allow individuals and private organizations to develop AGI. If one takes the possibility seriously, AGI would a source of immense power and any state would to take that opportunity for itself. Edit: Not saying whether AGI is right around the corner, that's a different discussion. I'm just saying that a serious possibility of AGI and an understan…
AGI is religion invented for the stupid. There's no world in which a silly LLM can make intelligent decisions. It's all smoke and mirrors to make insane amounts of money and to maintain the sheep agreeing with the powerful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulatory capture doesn't necessarily mean the regulated get to decide what the regulators do in precise steps. It can simply mean they support and exist within a regulatory regime that greatly benefits the regulated. In fact, you generally don't want them directly telling the regulators what to do. Instead, the regulators make complex, costly rules that only large establishment players can follow. The regulators lo…
How does this benefit the regulated? I'd say it dooms the regulated: * with the government requiring the regulated to obtain approval to add each customer, they're losing a massive number of their customers * and even if a customer gets approved, every such customer now sees that access to the regulated can (and has been) shutoff with no notice if the gov doesn’t like the provider or customer - it's now a massive sup…
Who are they losing them to? They're the only game in town.
> it's now a massive supply chain risk for any customer to use a regulated provider
But seeing as there is no alternative use them they will.
> the regulated losing a massive part of their customer base
But they aren't. Access to existing models isn't being pulled. It is only access to previously unreleased models that is being restricted going forward.
> Open models are mere months behind.
Presumably the government will strategically ease restrictions as open models gain ground.