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

71–80 of 257 posts

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

#71

Post by 8cvor6j844qw_d6 »

dozerly wrote: post #61
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.

This could be why they’re going so hard on hacking everyone and everything. You make it clear AI is a threat, get it locked down, and then have the capital to push through the lockdown while others are stuck.

Same thoughts. Also, some of the recent coverage around AI hacks also feels unusually amplified and repetitive.

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

#72

Post by quikoa »

Footnote7341 wrote: post #45
johnnienaked wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you not believe it? Neither of them are even close to making a profit and the market is saturated with cheaper alternatives. This is a ploy for regulatory capture.

You're wrong about profits.

Are you sure you don't mean revenue? Given the enormous investments profits seem very unlikely.

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

#73

Post by asdfman123 »

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.

Public perception is another big one.

But I think with the way AI is slated to grow exponentially it's going to hit electricity limits very soon.

Big tech can build a huge data center in 5 years but scaling up the electrical infrastructure is mired in red tape and can take on the order of decades.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

simianwords wrote: post #39

(100% AI generated tweet btw) My take is that there's a real impending doom with real reason to coordinate a slow down: I'd put this at 60%. Reasons? All smart people are on this position. Dario has been saying this since 2015 or so. Paul Christiano as well. Hell even Elon Musk. I think its highly unlikely that you would base your entire world-view on a certain thing and then actually act on it when the time comes fo…

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by preommr »

deagle50 wrote: post #56

I'll go a step further, they aren't just pretending, they are blackmailing the country. The sane response would be "we don't negotiate with terrorists, and you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused."

> and you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused.

I don't understand why this isn't talked about more.

We don't need a slowdown. Just double down on prosecuting crimes.

Let the companies take the risk. If they feel confident and they're right they win market share. If they don't feel confident, they can not risk it and slow down. If they feel confident and they get it wrong, they should be sued to kingdom come. That alone should disincentivize reckleses behavior like letting models run crazy with large amounts of compute which leads to them escaping sandboxes.

This performative "our internal modles are so crazy powerful" song and dance is getting old, especially with no real concrete explanations.

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

#76

Post by 3eb7988a1663 »

dozerly wrote: post #61
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.

This could be why they’re going so hard on hacking everyone and everything. You make it clear AI is a threat, get it locked down, and then have the capital to push through the lockdown while others are stuck.

The Houthis missile story coming out now also feels like convenient fuel for the fire.

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

#77

Post by deagle50 »

preommr wrote: post #75
deagle50 wrote: post #56

I'll go a step further, they aren't just pretending, they are blackmailing the country. The sane response would be "we don't negotiate with terrorists, and you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused."

> and you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused. I don't understand why this isn't talked about more. We don't need a slowdown. Just double down on prosecuting crimes. Let the companies take the risk. If they feel confident and they're right they win market share. If they don't feel confident, they can not risk it and slow down. If they feel confident and they get it wrong, they should be sued…

Because they've done a great job in shifting the narrative to doomerism, from the very beginning. And money.

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

#78

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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.

> There’s no moat

People keep saying this, and while it may be partially true, it misses a very important detail. Right now, overall compute is a moat. Someone even commented on another of my comments that one reason Google is lagging is they don't have the same level of Nvidia farms as OpenAI and Anthropic.

A big reason that OpenAI and Anthropic are racing so fast is they both want to get to recursive self improvement (remains to be seen if that is actually possible, but AFAICT most people at these companies genuinely believe it is) before anyone else, because they believe whoever gets there first will then have an insurmountable lead. But I think they also clearly understand that neither of them have solved for alignment (and in fact they are further from it), and RSI with misaligned models, where interpretability is worse every 6 months, is incredibly dangerous.

I think the concerns about regulatory capture are warranted, but I see so many comments parroting the "evil Anthropic and OpenAI" viewpoints that they are missing some of the real, valid concerns and dangers. I think this tweet by David Kokotajlo makes some good points on how to tell if regulations are being "cheated" for the purposes of regulatory capture or if they really are actually pacing the frontier: https://x.com/DKokotajlo/status/2099185129533186438

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

#80

Post by jacobgold »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #67
jacobgold wrote: post #47

Make it easy for these companies by passing a law that any AI model a company offers to the public (non-government) has to be released as open weights. This is how we deflate the bubble safely and completely, without having to introduce a government regulator that is likely to go either too far or not far enough. This resolves the coordination problem among these potentially good actors.

If Astra is open-weight, black hats can download it, remove guardrails, and go on an automated hacking spree.

Just like they're already doing with frontier-level open weight models? Do you imagine that Russian and Chinese intelligence don't have copies of the Mythos/Fable weights?

The point is to slow progress of future models. Nothing can stop what has already been created.

Post reply on HN