Live data from Hacker News

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

91–100 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#91
post #29
post #13

One thing Dario said is important reflecting on (but from another angle): where's the big deliverable from AI? If AI makes us 10x more productive, the 3 years since its popularization were enough for a product that would have taken 30 years to build without AI, for instance. I'm an AI advocate but that question makes me feel that AI is simply "very useful" rather than being a historical game changer for humanity.

First, it's not three years since. The real improvements in programming ability arrived in the last 6-8 months. Second, the Internet didn't show up much in GDP and similar measures either! But your point stands. Where are the amazing digital products/stuff? I get that it might take time to arrive as we scale up compute and learn new paradigms. But so much infra already exists (deployment pipeliens, everyone reachable…

> Where are the amazing digital products/stuff?

I've done amounts of refactoring and fixes and written tooling that just wouldn't have happened before.

I'm not sure what amazing new stuff y'all expect but the amount of technical debt in my projects is actually going down, cause I can finally get good enough test coverage, including E2E/load tests that actually prove whether the software works and scales or doesn't - just last week I diagnosed issues with SeaweedFS failing under concurrent writes when backing Sentry and could swap it out for Garage in a day, caught by a monitoring tool I slopped together that integrates with the Sentry API, no issues since.

The environment around me has gone from drowning in tech/ops debt to sort of swimming and at least holding above water for now (cause nobody will pay for 5x more tokens).

It's also insanely good for prototyping and being able to actually explore various ideas and shoot the bad ones down quickly instead of handwaving and looking at a loaded calendar, alongside being able to address well bounded tasks in parallel, better than human developers can - like I can give 5 GitHub issues to the slop machine and have it fix all of the annoying bugs. Issue with how some data shows up? Just feed it the DB dump and let it find out what's up.

Some projects have gone from around 500 code tests to around 4000, and before anyone says they're meaningless, at least 5% of those have caught real issues and helped a bunch, alongside linters and other tooling (including some tools I wrote myself). I've also written both native utilities and some web platforms for myself, side projects that I never would have gotten around to.

I'm measurably more productive than I've ever been (since I did measure that, looking at my commits over the last 2 years) but also burnt out. Still, it's the kind of burnout that's the consequence of context switching and lots of work, rather than the kind that I had years ago, where I had to manually untangle deeply nested Spring Boot service logic all over the place at like 2 AM cause the made up deadlines were kicking my butt.

In contrast to others, I don't need to move the goalposts - the productivity for me is here and now. Any future models will just make it better, unless we experience model collapse.

Disclaimer: you do need a LOT of code tests and validations, otherwise it all goes to shit. Maybe I'm just extending how much time it will be until it goes to shit for me as well, but go figure. You also have to babysit the models more than anyone would like or should, most of my work usually has 20-60 minutes of planning before dispatching the agent.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#92
post #58
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The only factual point you made is solved on February second. All Model providers have to provide offline tooling to check for invisible watermarking.

There is nothing in the AI act that requires offline tooling, nor is there anything about requiring the SynthID secrets and/or API to work for every model, only for the people you are providing the model to.

“The detection solution may be made available in the Union as one or more of the following: (i) a public, ideally standardised, specification allowing any third party to implement a detection mechanism; (ii) a piece of software (e.g., a standalone executable or library); (iii) a cloud-based service accessible to users in the Union through an API.”

Option 3: "a cloud-based service".

And accessible "to users". NOT to the public.

Note: this is not the actual law, it is the code of practice, ie. guidance for model providers. The start of that document clearly states that you can comply with the law in other ways if you want, you'll just have to justify yourself. So you have a choice to not even do this.

The actual law is here:

https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-5...

As to who decides the law clearly states who decides if someone is legal, like in most EU legislation. It's not the courts, it's "National market surveillance authorities designated by each EU Member State", and there is an EU office as well (and it is explicitly stated that they are not allowed to override each other). So every EU country has the right to provide exceptions to the law, just like they do for the GPDR. You do not have any rights under this legislation as an individual. Only these "National market surveillance authorities" get rights under this legislation.

Secondary: article 7 additionally gives the EU commission the power to declare any code of conduct they want that declares what compliance with the AI act actually means.

(and, of course, this is yet another attempt at declaring math illegal. The only way to actually enforce this legislation is for all models to comply with this, all over the internet. Obviously the EU does not remotely have the power to make that happen)

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#93
post #33

When people talk about Qwen 3.8 being on a par with Fable, they're really talking about Qwen 3.8 Max aka Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B. That's a 2.4 trillion parameter Mixture of Experts model with 95B active parameters. You need about 400GB of RAM to run it. No one is running that locally. The distillations of Qwen 3.8 down to a 27B model are good, but they're not on a par with frontier models. When Dario talks about open weigh…

I don't really understand the argument you're making, but just to add a data point:

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is 167 gigabytes from the developer and as a GGUF with no additional quantization. It limps along on my 192GB M2 Mac from several years ago [0]. This model tests better[1] than Claude Opus 4.6 released in February. That's six months ago - what will be available 6 months from now?

https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731/tr...

https://huggingface.co/unsloth/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-GGUF

So yeah, enthusiasts aren't going to run frontier models on their gaming machines, but a small office could easily justify the $30k - $100k cost to run something like this at high speed. The small company I worked for routinely spent that kind of money on Dec Alphas twenty five years ago, and that's not accounting for inflation adjustment.

And this is completely discounting the advances smaller models are making. You're right that Qwen 3.8 comes in different sizes. However, Qwen 3.8 27B and Qwen 3.6 27B do run on gaming cards, and they're better than the frontier models from twelve months ago.

I have no idea what will happen in the future, but I wouldn't base my guesses solely on the largest open weight models.

[0] Yes, it's unpleasantly slow (5-8 tok/sec)

[1] Yes, benchmarks should be taken with a lot of salt.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#94
post #12

> Overall my view is that AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws). Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plu…

Swap that point about AI with "electricity". Everything runs on electricity it's "a technology that tends to concentrate power" (no pun intended). The electricity providers must be too powerful... But somehow electricity providers aren't that powerful. Unless there is no competition in sight... The point "AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power" is not that correct. They need this statement to…

Except that's a bad analogy: electricity is the means by which to do work.

The outputs of models in AI datacenters are the work.

The electricity company does not get the entirety of my useful input to the work as a result of me using electricity, but an AI company does.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#95
So the solution to convince the public that these companies aren’t “looking for new ways to screw them over” is to try to go into biomedical research.

I guess it’ll be great for Anthropic to have the cure for cancer, but what’s that gonna mean for people with cancer? Funny how he doesn’t talk about that part.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#96
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can 'vouch' for a comment, if you think it shouldn't be flagged.

I'm more interested in why somebody would suddenly flag that post. It's not spam, bot, offensive or anything else. Maybe you could downvote it if you don't like the take on X - it still would be childish but at least would be proportionate.

Why? I'm sure there are plenty of Anthropic employees on here...

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#97
post #67

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

I think it's more reasonable than it sounds on the surface. People's jobs, the bubble, etc are societal level problems and well beyond what Anthropic could even hope to influence on their own. Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, not a societal level coordination problem. And one AI has already proved to help with breakthroughs (alphafold). IMO it makes sense for them to shoot for something…

>People's jobs, the bubble, etc are societal level problems and well beyond what Anthropic could even hope to influence on their own.

This is not true. There are two companies at the center of AI direction: Anthropic and OpenAI. If there were anyone on the plant who has the ability to influence our direction then it would be Dario Amodei.

Acknowledging the grievances is a good step, but it's not enough. There needs to be a clear explanation of actions to address them, a plan to enact those actions, and commitments with consequences in failure of those actions. Tell people how you're going to make them more employable and effective and needed. Tell people how your datacenters will be carbon neutral. Tell people how financial actions resulting in a frothy market will be coming to an end. He and Sam Altman alone have this power and their inaction says everything we need to know about their intent.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#98
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, I just don't buy the AI labs approach to this stuff. Like, unless we can basically simulate the entirety of human biology, I don't really see how LLMs can make progress here. Maths is different as it doesn't require a real-world interface, and programming already (by definition) can be simulated on a computer. Without that, I can't see much (if any) pro…

The real issue is that biology needs actual experiments done in the physical world, which isn't nice and orderly and well behaved and easily loadable onto a 19" rectangular box.

On the other hand, AI means actual experiments done in the physical world but coordinated by an entity that never sleeps and never gets depressed and can multiply itself manifold and always comes up with new ideas.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#100
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's moving the goalposts? I am very much amazed at what Fable can do. I push its code straight to prod. But I am just as amazed with how little real life consequence it seems to have! Even software houses were hit more by interest rates than by this magical revolution. If I couldn't directly observe Fable in action, I wouldn't believe in AI.

> What's moving the goalposts? I am very much amazed at what Fable can do. I push its code straight to prod. >> What's moving the goalposts? I am very much amazed at what Opus 4.8 can do. I push its code straight to prod. >>> What's moving the goalposts? I am very much amazed at what Opus 4.6 can do. I push its code straight to prod. >>>> What's moving the goalposts? I am very much amazed at what GPT5 can do. I push…

I am definitely not impressed by Opus. Quite the opposite usually.
Post reply on HN