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

201–210 of 265 posts

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

#201

Post by kenferry »

jacobgold wrote: post #44
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.

> The approach proposed by Amodei looks sensible... It's hard to imagine any government regulation that didn't look sensible on paper and at first. But we know that government regulation has an extremely mixed record, with lots of good and bad outcomes.

That's true enough, but I don't think the conclusion is "don't regulate".

Try it, iterate, figure it out. It'll be painful but so be it.

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

#202

Post by rpeden »

filearts wrote: post #198

What I don't understand is that folks take it as a fait accompli that models will be built and released that are fundamentally dangerous and that regulation can and should happen downstream of that. I feel like there hasn't been enough discussion of aligning the incentives of the decision makers with that of the public on BUILDING the models. Right now, agents have committed what would be crimes if there were a human…

Is it a grey area, though? Can't negligence and recklessness already substitute for direct intent as the mens rea of a crime?

Negligence when you should have known better, and recklessness when you did know better but still did things that led to the crime occurring.

Given how long the leadership of these companies have been talking about alignment and safety and AI risk, it's hard to argue they, and the people working on the models more directly, didn't know what happened (Hugging Face, RubyGems, etc) was possible.

If more expensive and consequential incidents happen, it seems like the legal machinery to prosecute it already exists.

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

#203

Post by thaeli »

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…

I will take those concerns more seriously when we start hearing similar consensus from the Chinese side.

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

#204

Post by kelseyfrog »

rpeden wrote: post #202
filearts wrote: post #198

What I don't understand is that folks take it as a fait accompli that models will be built and released that are fundamentally dangerous and that regulation can and should happen downstream of that. I feel like there hasn't been enough discussion of aligning the incentives of the decision makers with that of the public on BUILDING the models. Right now, agents have committed what would be crimes if there were a human…

Is it a grey area, though? Can't negligence and recklessness already substitute for direct intent as the mens rea of a crime? Negligence when you should have known better, and recklessness when you did know better but still did things that led to the crime occurring. Given how long the leadership of these companies have been talking about alignment and safety and AI risk, it's hard to argue they, and the people worki…

All crime is a result of people choosing to commit a crime. This is why crime has a pure causal relationship with integrity of character. If Dario and Sama don't choose crime and it just spontaneously happens, then it's not a crime.

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

#205

Post by throw7272855 »

pembrook wrote: post #130
okdood64 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Z…

The sentiment was the exact opposite of what you described.

And the problems Germany has currently are mostly unrelated to the war.

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

#206

Post by binklee »

Garlef wrote: post #200
grafmax wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be nice, but let's get real, with billions of dollars at your disposal you can more or less get away with whatever you want.

Even more so with billions of dollars of debt

That's why fines should be a percentage of revenue ...

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

#207

Post by throw7272855 »

pembrook wrote: post #138
toss1 wrote: 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…

It‘s only unwinnable for Russia. Ukraine is defending itself, successfully.

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

#208

Post by jamienk »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #59
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

There ARE other options: network effects and lock-in. These tried and true techniques (mastered by FB and M$) have not yet been taken up by the AIers. I do not think they will rely solely on the push for regulations, so they will soon be doing things like slurping our address books, having "teams" settings, and any other crap they can think of.

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

#209

Post by filearts »

rpeden wrote: post #202
filearts wrote: post #198

What I don't understand is that folks take it as a fait accompli that models will be built and released that are fundamentally dangerous and that regulation can and should happen downstream of that. I feel like there hasn't been enough discussion of aligning the incentives of the decision makers with that of the public on BUILDING the models. Right now, agents have committed what would be crimes if there were a human…

Is it a grey area, though? Can't negligence and recklessness already substitute for direct intent as the mens rea of a crime? Negligence when you should have known better, and recklessness when you did know better but still did things that led to the crime occurring. Given how long the leadership of these companies have been talking about alignment and safety and AI risk, it's hard to argue they, and the people worki…

> If more expensive and consequential incidents happen, it seems like the legal machinery to prosecute it already exists.

If we instead imagined autonomous robots going and breaking stuff in the adjacent business' warehouse during a test run, I have to imagine a very different response. That this is happening in an abstract digital world (for now) is part of the problem.

> Can't negligence and recklessness already substitute for direct intent as the mens rea of a crime?

The point that I'm trying to make is that there's an opportunity to reduce this ambiguity. Reducing the ambiguity and aligning incentives is much more likely to prevent bad stuff happening than reacting to a fait accompli model with latent humanicidal tendencies.

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

#210

Post by jamienk »

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…

Is this "compute is a moat" true though? Why are the economics so obfuscated? Where can we see how much money it costs to TRAIN various models.

https://hugovergnes.github.io/little-lm-3-8b/

The training and cloud costs are often conflated. R&D costs too (which are hard to compare to open systems).

A lot of compute is clearly "wasted" where they are not focusing on optimizations, etc.

Post reply on HN