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

251–260 of 337 posts

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

#251

Post by DrBenCarson »

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.)

Excellent, that’s what people have been doing for 40 years. Surely that means the models have 0 hope of finding successful attack vectors

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

#252

Post by reinitctxoffset »

ma2kx wrote: post #77

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

There are a ton of DeepGEMM kernels in all of the flashinfer adjacent stacks including trtllm. Bunch of the headers still have the CLion pragmas and shit.

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

#253

Post by random3 »

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

And what else, forbid running workloads outside of US so you can’t offshore workloads? What’s the rationale behind policies that can be detrimental only to US companies?

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

#254

Post by cognitiveinline »

lr1970 wrote: post #200
bhelkey wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/mod…

> 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, ...) It means Google and Amazon do not care and would not voice their opposition against the government action.

Right, Meta and Microsoft are bullwarks of government overreach activism.

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

#255

Post by dataflow »

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~ they are the ethical good guy.

s/good/least bad/

Which company would you put higher?

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

#256

Post by janderson215 »

jackb4040 wrote: post #143
Jagerbizzle wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"leveraging their infra" is a pretty solid play, considering the scope of investments these two companies have made thus far.

It does however totally abandon the question of making a profitable mass-market AI product upon which the scale of those investments was based.

Depends on what you mean by AI product. If you’re talking about a chatbot or agent, that may be true, but o think it’s less true if you’re talking about AI-run application layer tooling. If Meta decides to compete with Shopify and provide a launchpad for entrepreneurs, you can bet the platform would be rife with AI to facilitate operations, marketing, coms, etc…

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

#257

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #250
storus wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are using long optical cables attached to drones. The battlefield looks like a giant spider web afterwards.

I genuinely can't tell if you're joking, though I'd like to believe you are...

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/technology/general/fiber-optic-dro...

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

#258

Post by npn »

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

They spend $40mil for lobbying, I'm sure they can also spare some millions to this place (and other places like reddit). They all do.

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

#260

Post by sublinear »

torginus wrote: post #154
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.)

That's really delusional and dismissive of the huge amount of skill still required on the human end.
Post reply on HN