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

121–130 of 264 posts

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

#121

Post by [deleted] »

simianwords wrote: post #31
tuvix wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would someone hold the opposite opinion? It’s much more likely that our current approach to large language models for general use will eventually show diminishing improvements (even if you think it hasn’t yet), than the opposite situation where valuable improvements can be made forever. The threat of distillation and efficiency gains from competitors mean that providing value at the top end of the market is an ex…

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..

[deleted]

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

#122

Post by ryan_n »

orangecat wrote: post #118
chinathrow wrote: post #62

You know what rubs me is that in Darios blog post he talks about "abundance", but what he really means is that Anthropic will bath in endless pools of hard curreny while the rest of the world will try to stay just barely afloat/alive.

It's an obnoxious form of discourse when someone says X and the response is "obviously you're lying and you really mean Y, which is terrible". By all accounts Dario sincerely believes that AI has the potential to substantially improve the lives of everyone; that's my view as well. And it might be wrong! In which case you should offer evidence against it, rather than making empty claims that your opponent is a lying l…

Look I don't entirely disagree but if guys like dario want to not be called a liar, perhaps he should stop lying on a regular basis

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

#123

Post by orangecat »

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.

The fact they were desperate enough for a PR win they stole the research

I guess people are just going to keep spreading misinformation about this, along the same lines as "Anthropic's C compiler fails on hello world". There is zero indication that they stole anything, unless it counts as "stealing" to spin up a bunch of compute based on rumors that the problem had been solved already.

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

#124

Post by asdfman123 »

pianopatrick wrote: post #116
asdfman123 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone will likely come up with some clever way to make AI use less electricity. There's probably something in how you design the models or chips or some other thing that will be figured out over the next 5 - 10 years to make these use dramatically less electricity.

True, but maybe they can use 50% less power or something. Maybe 90% if we're really lucky.

But the growth in the scope and usage of AI is poised to grow exponentially, assuming this isn't a bubble.

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

#125

Post by toss1 »

pembrook wrote: post #94
toss1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Sacks has been so consistently catastrophically wrong about everything else (especially geopolitics), this prompts me to reconsider my opinion on this. [edit: +consistently]

To be fair, his takes on the Ukraine war from the covid days have aged very well, and were contrarian to mainstream narratives at the time.

I was trying to avoid that topic on HN, but DS' takes on the Ukraine ware were the MOST atrocious, amoral, and just plain wrong, basically suggesting Ukraine should just give up because Russia would win anyway.

Nevermind that any decent person would support a people's right to live and determine their own future without a neighboring despot using all his nation's might to literally eliminate them as a people.

Quite the opposite is true. And even if it weren't, condemning all of Ukraine to the fate of the massacres Bucha and Mariupol is just plain evil.

Unreal anyone would call that kind of take "fair". Rethink your life

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

#126

Post by [deleted] »

orangecat wrote: post #123
vrganj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact they were desperate enough for a PR win they stole the research I guess people are just going to keep spreading misinformation about this, along the same lines as "Anthropic's C compiler fails on hello world". There is zero indication that they stole anything, unless it counts as "stealing" to spin up a bunch of compute based on rumors that the problem had been solved already.

[deleted]

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

#127

Post by pllbnk »

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.

Of all the fan theories I have read this seems the most nefarious and the most plausible.

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

#128

Post by lrvick »

okdood64 wrote: post #101
lrvick wrote: post #88

Maybe everyone forgets how PCI standards played out. They are an example of an industry self regulating, because the regulators have no idea how technology works. Granted, PCI is so weak it is almost useless, and yet still better than anything congress could have come up with. Where the government might have to step in, is by having a kill switch to cut off internet access from countries that fail to agree to common…

> Granted, PCI is so weak it is almost useless, and yet still better than anything congress could have come up with. Elaborate, please?

See the endless PCI compliant companies that get hacked. Any standard that has a threat model accepting trust in any single human or computer is security theater.

PCI enforces some good practices, but for instance has no defense against supply chain attacks such as code signing, review signing, reproducible builds, full source bootstrapping, etc etc.

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

#130

Post by pembrook »

okdood64 wrote: post #104
pembrook wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, his takes on the Ukraine war from the covid days have aged very well, and were contrarian to mainstream narratives at the time.

> his takes on the Ukraine war What's specifically?

Mainstream narratives for the first year or two of the war were:

- Russia was a paper tiger and weak

- Ukraine was going to win against a corrupt/unmotivated Russian military so it should keep fighting

- Putin had made an error and he would get overthrown

- The Russian economy was going to collapse due to sanctions

- Russia oil pipelines would freeze and never come back online without western help (this was a Peter Zeihan favorite)

- Europe would come to Ukraine's defense

- Etc.

He threw cold water on every single one of those narratives (specifically) from the beginning, meanwhile western media was busy spinning false rah-rah propaganda narratives like "the ghost of Kiev" etc.

Basically he was correct that we should not have cheered on this war. If a settlement and concessions were reached much earlier it would have been better for Ukraine (they likely would have kept more territory) and we wouldn't have 1+ million casualties and EU economies like Germany death spiraling and turning far right due to cutting themselves off from Russian energy.

Post reply on HN