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

171–180 of 264 posts

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

#171

Post by hintymad »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #78
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 improveme…

> Right now, overall compute is a moat.

Very true. Or further, access to capital is the moat. It is the very reason that we don't have a real open-source community that trains frontier models - individuals simply can't afford the training infrastructure, nor sufficient high-quality training data.

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

#172

Post by denverllc »

yawnxyz wrote: post #57

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 i…

They don't want FDA, they want FINRA. Basically an organization that can rubber stamp them and create regulatory headaches for others.

FDA is just way too much red tape.

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

#173

Post by jryle70 »

bbor wrote: post #133
dannykwells wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. The goal is positioning a duopoly / cartel as the only “safe” and “moral” path and then that cartel sets pace and price.

Source? Just "that's a plausible motivation"? Cause that's pretty terrible proof.

Source? on HN you can say whatever you want. Your own opinion, without even facts to back it up. The more confident you sound the more convincing you are.

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

#174

Post by [deleted] »

hintymad wrote: post #170
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.

> 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. If it's true, it makes them evil. Especially Dario, who speaks about moral high ground and fate of humanity all day, yet it's not that different from a cult leader does.

[deleted]

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

#175

Post by ransom1538 »

hintymad wrote: post #170
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.

> 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. If it's true, it makes them evil. Especially Dario, who speaks about moral high ground and fate of humanity all day, yet it's not that different from a cult leader does.

"If it's true, it makes them evil."

Hitler level evil.

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

#176

Post by Joel_Mckay »

NiloCK wrote: post #158
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When it stops with the compacted isomorphic plagiarism using other peoples work like an intelligence campaign. LLM are not "AI" in my opinion, but are good at domain context search. Neuromorphic computing may change that one day, but it will unlikely arise from the LLM cults. =3

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

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

#177

Post by michaelbarton »

bbor wrote: post #132
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.

Yeah it's either that or the scientists are right about their field of study. Absolutely shocking and depressing how many people are willing to trust this Capitalist Realism hunch over the world in front of their eyes.

I get your point. There’s a lot hysteria right now. However I think people are willing to trust a capitalist realism hunch because over the last >20 years, that hunch is usually going to be right.

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

#178

Post by Insanity »

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.

They haven’t posted a profit in any quarter, and even IPO dates are slipping. They have revenue, not profit.

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

#179

Post by blululu »

jacobgold wrote: post #81
blululu wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? This is a terrible policy. In addition to the obvious AI safety risks, this just amounts to a free R&D subsidy to Amazon for hosting models. It would remove any incentive to do any R&D without AWS level physical infrastructure.

That's an understandable first thought, but consider what the goal is for this: slowing down future development. This can be achieved by dramatically reducing the market value of models.

Ok, yeah. That's an interesting point.

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

#180

Post by r_lee »

8cvor6j844qw_d6 wrote: post #71
dozerly wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

and especially how the coverage seems to be drip fed, one case right after the previous one dies down, then this orchestrated "we need to pace" stand by all the big labs

it's really almost perfect, prep the media scene by causing these hacking incidents, generate a bunch of fuss with it, then release an essay saying why regulation is needed to pace development right after

oh and let's not forget the "its gonna kill us all" essay on twitter on top of everything.

something about this just feels very artificial

Post reply on HN