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

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 572 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#181

Post by jacquesm »

stnikolauswagne wrote: post #162
jatins wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Building the software post-launch of the integration would have easily taken 2.5 years at minimum. What you have said is correct, it lets you build software much faster. The question however is: is that software making money for the company? (Not talking about what you built but in general) I think, with AI, companies are saying yes to a lot of things they would have said No to ik say 2020. And as a result realizin…

Yeah, thats why I meant I was in a spherical cow-situation, this was a situation where we took over a company in the exact same field and I had 5 years of experience on which tweaks would need to be made to be able to rationalise away positions. This sort of system only works with internal software and an unusual amount of data. If we were in the business of selling that software we could not have charged a higher pr…

And it quite possibly creates a huge risk for the company in the longer term, there is only one person who knows how that all works.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#182

Post by andersonl »

podgorniy wrote: post #66
pu_pe wrote: 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…

You realize utilities are arguably the most regulated industry in the US, right? Like this isn't just a bad counter, it's the example of necessary regulation due to concentration.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#183

Post by cloudie78 »

How’s that moat coming along, Dario?

Or are we still doing the lawfare strat since you can’t get any meaningful lead on Chinese models?

How about the involvement in the Iran bombing that killed 160, out of which 120 were kids?

Forgive me if Anthropic doesn’t really rhyme with trust over here.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#184

Post by kilroy123 »

axegon_ wrote: post #14

Called it! He was bound to squeal after the release of QWEN 3.8 in one way or another and here it is. I wasn't even a teenager but I'm getting so much Jobs/Ballmer flashbacks with internet explorer and microsoft office. Edit: Does anyone else notice the switching between dashes and em-dashes between paragraphs? Tells you a lot about the man, doesn't it.

Putting on my tin-foil hat here. I suspect we'll see major RAM shortages well into the 2030s to stop the commoners from having enough RAM to run powerful local models.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#185

Post by ironqcold »

kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> 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 really can't disagree. What's the point of all this talk if for most ordinary people these technologies do more harm than good?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#186

Post by RandomLensman »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #137
RandomLensman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Would that fine print be binding? 2) What actual law/regulation would that currently be that would be used for such an outright refusal? 3) Would that comply with current regulation?

Have you ever dealt with a government or government adjacent company? It'll be spec'd out so that it's cheaper to bend over and take it than take it to court and prove them wrong.

What's an example of a government adjacent company? And was that in a civil law country?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#187

Post by jacquesm »

rvba wrote: post #119
RandomLensman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The watermarking algorithm itself has a VERY specific property that should have set off everyone's alarm bells: it is NOT the case that you can "check text for AI watermark". What it technically mandates is that if you provide access to a model, those people should be able to check if text is generated by that model. Not by any other model. It is NOT a general "is this AI?" Where do I find that in the Act (or code o…

It sounds like anti EU propaganda.

That's that accounts main contribution to HN and it's a miracle to me that they are still here.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#188

Post by 7373737373 »

yoavm wrote: post #166
tsimionescu wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between your product being used for basic military operations like taking notes or getting from A to B, and your products suggesting military operations that kill hundreds of schoolchildren, an obvious and horrific war crime.

It's a mistake. If it was done by an auto-correct mechanism, would we still say "maybe don't sell your word processor to the army if you can't vouch for its auto-correct system!!!"? Besides, "taking notes" can literally be listing targets, and "getting from A to B" can be the road to killing them.

How intelligent and autonomous does a murderbot have to become before you stop absolving its creator and seller from any responsibility?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#189

Post by jacquesm »

axegon_ wrote: post #14

Called it! He was bound to squeal after the release of QWEN 3.8 in one way or another and here it is. I wasn't even a teenager but I'm getting so much Jobs/Ballmer flashbacks with internet explorer and microsoft office. Edit: Does anyone else notice the switching between dashes and em-dashes between paragraphs? Tells you a lot about the man, doesn't it.

And open source in general. Also: keep in mind that without open source to feed it there would have been no agentic coding.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#190

Post by inciampati »

alphazard wrote: post #180
eloisant wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides cancer isn't really "a disease" but rather "a family of diseases" that can vary a lot. Even breast cancer can be one of many different cancers. It's like saying "we'll cure infectious diseases"

"Cancer isn't a single disease" is often shouted from the Dunning-Kruger peak of cancer research. I think it was popularized by an explainer video on Youtube, and now it's being memed. The people who think this way want to legitimize funding a particular research niche that they benefit from. A more sophisticated view is that cancer (one idea) is an problem of rates (like most things in biology) and there is a tumor…

And this business of rates is also why getting the immune system—such as via personalized vaccine—to recognize a tumor is functionally "curing cancer". The problem is it isn't one disease in the sense that different tissues, cell types, and systems are affected leading to different parameters in the design and delivery of said vaccines.
Post reply on HN