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

211–220 of 337 posts

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

#211

Post by cogman10 »

Robdel12 wrote: post #210

https://www.anthropic.com/news/donation-public-first-action Probably because anthropic is pouring $40 million dollars into a political pact to regulate models. And they have not been quiet about wanting to ban/regulate OSS models either. I have no idea why HN still treats them like ~their~ they are the ethical good guy. Edit: I can’t English. At least we know this came from my dumb swishy brain

> I have no idea why HN still treats them like their the ethical good guy.

I don't know that HN usually does. But they did buy a decent amount of publicity by (initially) telling the US government no in using the models for war.

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

#212

Post by cogman10 »

christina97 wrote: post #9

I wonder what is happening behind closed doors for these companies to be issuing such a joint letter.

Almost certainly these companies are using similar strategies as the Chinese models which they fear will be made illegal.

It's also the case that it makes it hard to attract customers if your openweight model is banned. A major reason the likes of Qwen, Kimi, GLM, and Deepseek are popular (well, at least highly talked about) is because of the open weight models they gave away.

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

#213

Post by lampdoorpost »

bmurphy1976 wrote: post #112
christina97 wrote: post #9

I wonder what is happening behind closed doors for these companies to be issuing such a joint letter.

NVIDIA sells the tools. The more the better it is for them. Microsoft and Meta are also-rans at this point. Their best hope of catching up is probably leveraging their infra and open models.

Agreed for NVIDA's strategy. Saw from a previous thread but Joel's commoditize your complement essay makes a lot of sense for NVIDIA. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

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

#214

Post by satyrnein »

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #205
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)

> K3 is the only frontier model I can have a serious conversation with about my product's security. This is wrong IMO. You should have a serious conversation about your products security with someone who is actually trained on that subject. LLMs are useless if you don't already know more about the thing than the LLM, or if you don't care too much about the outcome (internal tools etc.)

This has been the prevailing advice all along, and yet we have security vulnerabilities everywhere that LLMs are good at spotting and exploiting. I think we need more options on the menu.

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

#215

Post by adastra22 »

cogman10 wrote: post #211
Robdel12 wrote: post #210

https://www.anthropic.com/news/donation-public-first-action Probably because anthropic is pouring $40 million dollars into a political pact to regulate models. And they have not been quiet about wanting to ban/regulate OSS models either. I have no idea why HN still treats them like ~their~ they are the ethical good guy. Edit: I can’t English. At least we know this came from my dumb swishy brain

> I have no idea why HN still treats them like their the ethical good guy. I don't know that HN usually does. But they did buy a decent amount of publicity by (initially) telling the US government no in using the models for war.

They never did that. They said all they required was a human in the loop for kill decisions. No autonomous kill drones.

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

#216

Post by janalsncm »

ma2kx wrote: post #77

It would be interesting to know how many optimizations of the Chinese models were incorporated back into Claude and Codex.

Many of the Chinese optimizations are public because they are published by the Chinese labs themselves. Hard to say what the labs are doing of course.

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

#217

Post by janalsncm »

largbae wrote: post #193
ma2kx wrote: post #77

It would be interesting to know how many optimizations of the Chinese models were incorporated back into Claude and Codex.

I may be remembering wrong, but reasoning was first demonstrated by DeepSeek. Edit: I am indeed remembering wrong, seems o1 was first.

Deepseek’s R1 paper was the first paper to describe how to do it. O1 was released before R1 came out.

A month before the R1 paper came out, they released the Deepseek math paper which described their method for MoE load balancing.

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

#218

Post by cschep »

adastra22 wrote: post #215
cogman10 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no idea why HN still treats them like their the ethical good guy. I don't know that HN usually does. But they did buy a decent amount of publicity by (initially) telling the US government no in using the models for war.

They never did that. They said all they required was a human in the loop for kill decisions. No autonomous kill drones.

They did something Sam wouldn't do at the very least.

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

#219

Post by novaleaf »

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #205
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)

> K3 is the only frontier model I can have a serious conversation with about my product's security. This is wrong IMO. You should have a serious conversation about your products security with someone who is actually trained on that subject. LLMs are useless if you don't already know more about the thing than the LLM, or if you don't care too much about the outcome (internal tools etc.)

I think security is an integral part of any production software, and if you get value from LLM's in software development, it seems likely they can be useful in security too.

My point and frustration is that gatekeeping in the name of Security makes the Chinese models actually better at security than USA models.

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

#220

Post by daymanstep »

adastra22 wrote: post #215
cogman10 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no idea why HN still treats them like their the ethical good guy. I don't know that HN usually does. But they did buy a decent amount of publicity by (initially) telling the US government no in using the models for war.

They never did that. They said all they required was a human in the loop for kill decisions. No autonomous kill drones.

Human in the loop is infeasible in comms denied areas which is what we have in Ukraine/Russia right now.

It's why Ukraine and Russia are now using fully autonomous drones. That's the only real solution to jamming.

Post reply on HN