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

David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 258 posts

Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models

#51

Post by AndyNemmity »

jubilanti wrote: post #28
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that’s not accurate. An agreement among competitors to not engage in research that would let them outcompete each other is clearly an antitrust issue requiring a government waiver.

No, absolutely not "clearly". That word has no business being in any sentence about federal antitrust law in 2026. There is nothing clear or consistent about how is being applied and interpreted right now. If you're applying a coder's mindset to 'settled' law, you're in for a bad time.

I mean, they said it was clearly an anti trust issue. It is.

It is also true that nothing in law is currently clear, or consistent.

Both are true. But you stated it's one or the other.

Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models

#52

Post by batshit_beaver »

darth_avocado wrote: post #30
asdfman123 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, one of the major challenges they'll face is getting enough electricity. That could stop AI growth in its tracks.

I think it’s more than money and slowing progress. Public perception on AI is in the gutter. That is a much bigger threat to these companies. They’re trying to turn it around.

Trying to turn it around by once again claiming that ai is an existential threat and will take everyone’s job right before brutally murdering every human.

These companies don’t appear to give a single fuck about public perception. Only their investors and the government (in anticipation of the biggest bailout in human history).

Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models

#53

Post by snaking0776 »

vrganj wrote: post #34
simianwords wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, this is ridiculous. OpenAI said that they have a step change in model performance. They proved it by solving a Millenium problem. HF incidents are public and vetted. If you still think there's a stall despite all evidence pointing to opposite, I don't know what to say..

What reason could OpenAI possibly have to lie about their own performance? The fact they were desperate enough for a PR win they stole the research leading to the Millenium problem further hurts their case imo.

Two things can be true. Open AI is a huge company.

1. It has people in it who are career obsessed and who are willing to ruthlessly go after any opportunity to improve their standing/stock valuation. Using a 2 week old model to snipe a millenium prize for PR is in line with that.

2. There are many researchers and even executives at the company who genuinely think we are speedrunning the end of the world. I don’t know anyone in this field who honestly argues that if we build ASI soon it doesn’t lead to extinction. This group of people can output warnings about the state of research and fears for the future while pushing for regulation out of genuine fear of what they’re building. I tend to agree with them.

You can’t view these companies as a monolith. They’re actions won’t be consistent because it’s built of many people with conflicting beliefs. Please look at arguments regarding AI risk and the current pace of progress and value them as it relates to the argument itself, not who said it. We are in a dangerous place and no one is sure how quickly we’ll get to a bad spot.

Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models

#55

Post by the_optimist »

vrganj wrote: post #32
agd wrote: post #27

Huge amount of skepticism on HN right now, but the models are increasingly capable, and there are real, significant risks. The approach proposed by Amodei looks sensible - voluntary checks at frontier labs, and appropriate regulation to follow. Yes, the devil's in the details, but it feels like the right approach overall.

Turns out the EU was right all along with the AI act. They've been adopting a well-deserved "told you so" stance lately: > "In my view, the EU has already legislated for exactly this scenario: it is called the AI Act," said Michael McNamara, an Irish European Parliament lawmaker, who's the co-lead of the Parliament's group monitoring AI. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-response-ai-extinction-wa...

The EU is not leading anything. They may as well just commit to becoming a subsistence agricultural society with EPCOT heirlooms on display.

Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models

#57

Post by yawnxyz »

If they want something that looks more like FDA sanction clinical trial proceedings for these products, then what they have to also realize is that they will need a third party to audit every single thing for every single product release and you get something like ERoom's law where every success and model gets more and more expensive release and probably billions of dollars in multiple years release so I don't know if this actually helps them

Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models

#58

Post by simianwords »

dumberquestions wrote: post #37
kypro wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because their improvements are stagnating as they hit financial and technical challenges. I don't mean to be rude, but how is it even possible for someone to hold this opinion in mid-2026? Can you explain why you believe this?

I don't think the technical aspect is true, performance has been growing fairly consistently, but the financial aspect, or more accurately the logistical aspect, is plausible; with competition as fierce as it currently is, for how long can they keep growing at the same pace? People can't afford RAM anymore and datacenter build outs aren't particularly popular, OAI has been doubling compute capacity every 7 months for…

I just find it strange how multiple people throw completely different arguments just to land on same conclusion.

Your argument seems to mix a few arguments like: OpenAI has so much demand and it has made so much compute that it is a bad thing (?!). It can't go on (why?) hence the capabilities are stalling (how?).

Then you also say that it is too competitive which is a totally different argument to compute.

So in this thread we have multiple vectors of arguments like

- high competition

- high demand for compute (not sure how this hurts OpenAI but whatever)

- capability has stalled

Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models

#59

Post by Joel_Mckay »

throwaway63467 wrote: post #18

I guess what they really want is to limit sale of AI models to compliant vendors and then raise the bar to compliance just high enough so they can pass it but smaller labs can’t. There’s no moat, it’s an efficient market that drives margins to zero right now, of course they don’t want that, collusion of the big vendors is the next logical step.

That is generally how regulatory-capture works. As silly as I personally think LLM hype is, the "AI" business posture choices with several Trillion dollars in debt on the books has very few options after hyper-scaling/sandbagging loses traction. =3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Post reply on HN