Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

151–160 of 259 posts

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

#151
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So to clarify...your position is that: it's better that Ukraine has been completely decimated and half a million have died fighting an un-winnable war...instead of taking lesser concessions upfront than they will ultimately have to make for this thing to end? Russia was clearly in the wrong here, and I wish Ukraine could win, but reality exists, and we kind of have to anchor our decisions based on it or suffer the co…

> to make for this thing to end Why should it end after concessions? You've just validated their strategy. There is surprisingly little realism among the crowd calling themselves realists.

Because while Russia was in a way stronger position than western media was portraying, they don't have an infinite capacity for pain.

They would absolutely love to not be sending their kids to die and selling natural resources to whomever again and traveling around the globe without sanctions.

The concessions they would have accepted at the beginning were less. However, now that they've lost so many men and risked their regime on it, they can't simply accept the same deal.

This is why the incentives that wars create are so terrible, especially for authoritarian regimes, even if they're at fault.

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

#152

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.

Here's the context for the "abundance" reference, for those curious: > I believe that AI could cure most major diseases in the next 5–10 years, greatly accelerate economic growth rates, create a world of abundance and empowerment, and usher in a renaissance of democracy and freedom. Whether that matches your description of it, I'll leave for folks to decide for themselves.

I have high hopes for AI yet am hard pressed to envision said abundance trickling down to the common man. The diseases cured will be locked behind a paywall and a renaissance of democracy and freedom is laughable in 2026, let alone beyond.

Dario and his team are on top of the world. He is a good salesman, no doubt. The shareholders will eat well.

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

#153
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.

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…

> I don’t know anyone in this field who honestly argues that if we build ASI soon it doesn’t lead to extinction.

Say what? Could lead to extinction, sure. Does? And nobody honestly argues otherwise? Baloney.

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

#155
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

So to clarify...your position is that: it's better that Ukraine has been completely decimated and half a million have died fighting an un-winnable war...instead of taking lesser concessions upfront than they will ultimately have to make for this thing to end? Russia was clearly in the wrong here, and I wish Ukraine could win, but reality exists, and we kind of have to anchor our decisions based on it or suffer the co…

Your "realism" is [unprintable here]. Worse, it is not reality at all, but believing a false promise from Putin.

The ACTUAL realism is to recognize Putin's Russia for what it is: a relentless aggressor who will respect no peace. Putin's Russia has violated EVERY "peace agreement it has ever made. "Peace" in their mind is merely a strategic pause in the conflict to regroup and rearm.

The list is extremely long, Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Donbas, and more. Exactly ZERO concessions brought peace.

The REALITY is Ukraine submitting to such a peace would merely be buying another worse war a few months or years down the road, after Russia has had a breather and a chance to rearm. It'll just be more deaths at a faster pace in Ukraine.

If you think otherwise, I'd have both a bridge and some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Meanwhile, your view of Ukraine is years out of date and was never true.

Ukraine has been anything but "completely decimated" — they have emerged as the leading global power in drones and air defense.

As to your 'half-million who have died', they are overwhelmingly Russian fighters — the absolute f'kn aggressors, and documented war criminals, torturers, rapists, thieves and worse. Zero sympathy. If they didn't want to die they could have just stayed home.

Also recognize the absolute goal of Russia, and Putin has NOT ONCE backed off from the stated goal: The entire concept of Ukraine as a people and as a state must be eliminated.

There is not even a surrender that can be acceptable to the people of Ukraine.

There is no compromise with someone who has the goal of murdering you or genociding your people.

The ONLY realistic solution is to boot Russia from every square inch of Ukrainian land, and force it back i it's box.

You obviously haven't noticed that Ukraine is on its way to accomplishing that, both decimating Russia's economic engine, and now taking back more land than RU has taken in 2026.

The shame here is the Western countries and Russia convinced Ukraine to give up nukes in return for inviolate borders, and when Russia violated that treaty back in 2014 taking Crimea, not one Western country pushed back.

Allowing Ukraine to get wiped off the map, and Ukrainians each, individually, to be forced to abandon their identity and language, and suffer rape, torture, and death may be a "realistic" option, but it is not an option to anyone who has an ounce of morality. Perhaps you should learn about it.

The only outcome that actually works is to force despots like Putin back into their box. Preferably six feet underground.

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

#156
post #115
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> just double down on prosecuting crimes. That quote comes from someone that has never tried to get law enforcement to pursue a case. Local or state police are completely unequipped to respond. And FBI is unlikely to get involved unless damage is high six figures. We had an incident where we had a ton of evidence pointing to a past employee. It would have been an incredibly easy case for the FBI. They didn't have the…

> FBI is unlikely to get involved unless damage is high six figures

How many figures of damage did Aaron Swartz cause?

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

#157

Exactly, if they want it to slow down, they can strike an agreement in private and do whatever they want. The only reason they "want it to be law" is so they can strangle competition.

> they can strike an agreement in private

That's what we call a cartel. Like Apple and Google.

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

#158

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

> As silly as I personally think LLM hype is

Did you know that an LLM solved a millennium problem last week?

Do you have any personal threshold past witch you will acknowledge that this technology is real?

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

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With closed-weight, we can get the models out to defenders before they're in the hands of attackers.

There are also other categories of risk such as biorisk. Open-weight means no guardrails.

Don't get me wrong, I like your idea of deflating the AI bubble, I'm just skeptical that this is a great way to do it.

The PauseAI people have some ideas: https://pauseai.info/proposal

* International body which must approve new training runs

* Ban training on copyrighted material

* Hold AI model creators liable

The essential benefit of your idea is making new training runs unprofitable. But I imagine there are other ways to accomplish that, e.g. by taxing AI companies to the point where they are just barely squeaking by financially.

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

#160
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..

Solving millennium problems doesn’t pay the bills.

Their best models might be quite good when directed at extremely difficult and very focused problems, but most business use cases are nothing like that.

Edit:

Not trying to imply these new frontier models aren’t also better at other things, just that there’s really no reason for most people to use them when cheaper alternatives exist that get the job done just as well.

Post reply on HN