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

Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 337 posts

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#151

Post by davkan »

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #148
davkan wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those salaries seem low for mid sized cities even no?

I think they're generalizing beyond software engineers with what they're saying. G&A, Marketing, etc roles pay significantly less than software engineers and that $55-75k figure is realistic in lower cost of living areas. Even in Colorado, which the Denver Metro Area is HCOL, there are companies (smaller, regional, not national/global) still offering that level of salary.

Yeah that would make more sense. Though it seems to me AI is currently better at reducing dev headcount than most other roles.

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#152

Post by xpct »

urbsgpw wrote: post #142
apurvak wrote: post #72

I wonder why Apple stayed absent from signing this?

Maybe less shocking, but still, so is google. I know they are one of the labs, but that being said they rely far less on gemini for revenue as opposed to the big 2.

I think Google can play both sides here: they may end up a frontier lab if OpenAI/Anthropic dissolve, or a regular LLM provider, in which case they could be serving open models.

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#154

Post by torginus »

novaleaf wrote: post #141

Some irony: I subscribe to Claude and Codex (20x plans), and now Kimi. Why Kimi? because K3 is the only frontier model I can have a serious conversation with about my product's security. (I did apply for OpenAi's Cyber Pilot but got no response)

The product strategy of 'consumer-grade' AI making deliberately insecure software, and then selling you limited access to the model that can fix it (if they think you deserve to pay them) is just diabolical.

(Grade 3 AI which can hack both previous tiers is exclusively sold to the highest bidder.)

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#155

Post by bhelkey »

lr1970 wrote: post #65

The list of companies that signed this letter is telling (including Nvidia, Meta, Microsoft). Equally telling is the list of companies that did not sign it -- including Google, Amazon.

> Equally telling is the list of companies that did not sign it -- including Google, Amazon.

Could you elaborate? I don't understand your implication.

Amazon in particular hosts open weight models via Amazon Bedrock (e.g. Ministral 14B 3.0, DeepSeek V3.2, ...)[1].

In case it changes the context of this comment, I am a Meta employee, all opinions are my own.

[1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/model-c...

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#156

Post by Wowfunhappy »

thewebguyd wrote: post #121
etiennebausson wrote: post #93

> The unbearable cheapness of open weight models So the closed model try to get client with their model by saying it's cheaper than employees, and then turn around to lawyer-out cheaper alternative? Truly the american dream.

And the verdict is still out on if it's going to be cheaper than employees in the long run. Maybe for companies in HCoL areas (SV/NYC), but any smaller mid-market org in a LCoL area, frontier model token spend may not end up all that cheaper when your employee salaries are $55k-$75k/year so you're mostly evaluating it as an additional force multiplier expense rather than a headcount replacer.

For hosted models, there's no way to know what the real costs are. But we know what it costs to run the open models, and moore's law tells us that it's going to get cheaper, at least for the same capabilities they have today.

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#159

Post by tentahedronic »

idiotsecant wrote: post #138
thewebguyd wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the verdict is still out on if it's going to be cheaper than employees in the long run. Maybe for companies in HCoL areas (SV/NYC), but any smaller mid-market org in a LCoL area, frontier model token spend may not end up all that cheaper when your employee salaries are $55k-$75k/year so you're mostly evaluating it as an additional force multiplier expense rather than a headcount replacer.

55k??

That is a completely normal programmer salary in many countries, Silicon valley wages are just nuts. For example in Finland 55k before taxes is pretty good for ordinary non-wizard guy who can code, if you are a junior 40k is more realistic (and finding job in the first place can be a huge chaĺlenge..).

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#160

Post by davkan »

edot wrote: post #150
davkan wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those salaries seem low for mid sized cities even no?

Nope, not low at all. In the Midwest that’s exceedingly normal, even for non-entry level. $70k a year is living good in the Midwest, especially if dual income household ($140k a year is plenty when a decent house goes for $300k).

Fair enough, 55k would’ve seemed pretty low to me in the NE for a fresh dev. Not 75k though.
Post reply on HN