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

211–220 of 258 posts

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

#211

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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…

I just don't understand how you've come to this conclusion. The intended and common sense interpretation of "pacing the frontier" is precisely that we should not release models that are fundamentally dangerous; the frontier labs believe that government intervention is required to prevent such models from being released, and to give them the freedom of action to coordinate against it. Why do you think it's a way to externalize the risk or remain totally in control of the benefits?

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

#212

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

dehrmann wrote: post #144
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."

> you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused Even with where we're at right now, if people involved with the HF or Ruby Gems attacks faced legal consequences, the industry would get a lot more conservative very quickly. And unlike social media, section 230 doesn't apply, and there aren't any free speech concerns.

The HF and Ruby Gems attacks came from safety testing, where the AI providers attempted to understand what negative consequences could arise if someone subverted their safety protections. Don't you worry that legal consequences would disfavor safety testing and thus create more rather than fewer problems?

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

#213

Post by jamienk »

hintymad wrote: post #171
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

https://hugovergnes.github.io/little-lm-3-8b/ Remember how DeepSeek v.whatever cost ~$5m

Stable Diffusion 1.5 was reportedly $70k in compute.

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

#214

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

freejazz wrote: post #188
orangecat wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sorry, why doesn't the evidence that Dario is a liar suffice here? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We're already past the first situation.

What evidence do you have that Dario is a liar? The original comment didn't seem to contain any, just invective. Perhaps there's some subtle reference I missed?

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

#215

Post by jamienk »

Spacecosmonaut wrote: post #165

My read: OpenAI & Anthropic have realized they are reaching model capabilities that cannot be monetized -> too risky. Product liability issues. Fundamental control problems with current gen AI are not solved via RFLH. Human knowledge is compressed in weightspace in ways we dont understand. Models are essentially predictors of what humans would output given prompt. Weightspace includes concepts like blackmail, which c…

I think it is not just liability, it is dawning on us that we can run powerful models locally and this is the start of a Cloud-backlash.

The AI gods have tried to make it seem like they are not just running their programs in the cloud, but that the AI is so "powerful" that it requires a super computer to run.

But my 5 year old Mac is running pretty good AI, shocking fast, surprisingly powerful! The "natural" course of dev (Moore's law, etc) makes it pretty clear where this is going...

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

#216

Post by bigyabai »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #159
jacobgold wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Open-weight means no guardrails.

We're going to live in that world forever now, capable adversarial models have already been trained and will be used in a large conflict.

The pragmatic issue is hacking, and current open-weight LLMs are already capable of it. Bioweapons and RSI are pie-in-the-sky theories that distract from the real-world situation that each government wants to exploit.

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

#217

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

dwohnitmok wrote: post #36

Eh. This entire tweet smacks of being AI generated. It has a huge amount of LLM-isms. I wouldn't be surprised if Sacks just prompted an LLM to just come up with whatever rebuttal to whatever the regulation side comes up (given the big set of regulation tweets) with sounds most convincing, given his usual anti-regulation stance. Anyone with a Pangram account who can check?

Even better, Sacks admitted in response to a Pangram check that he has an LLM line edit his posts (https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2099040321351106807). (He claims, bizarrely, that this means Pangram is "bogus" rather than accurate.)

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

#218

Post by filearts »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #211
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…

I just don't understand how you've come to this conclusion. The intended and common sense interpretation of "pacing the frontier" is precisely that we should not release models that are fundamentally dangerous; the frontier labs believe that government intervention is required to prevent such models from being released, and to give them the freedom of action to coordinate against it. Why do you think it's a way to ex…

Let's say that we are "pacing the frontier", and an approved model goes and causes billions of damage, or worse, loss of life. The auditor signed off on the model, so who is to blame? Who put their akin in the game? METR did. The public did. But it seems like the lab has crafted a system in which they remain blameless.

The calculus of risk is fundamentally different when the adverse consequences are obvious and tangible.

I don't see how some federal agency or external auditor will do anything to align incentives. It just seems like a way to socialize the risk while holding onto the benefits to me.

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

#219

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

filearts wrote: post #218
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't understand how you've come to this conclusion. The intended and common sense interpretation of "pacing the frontier" is precisely that we should not release models that are fundamentally dangerous; the frontier labs believe that government intervention is required to prevent such models from being released, and to give them the freedom of action to coordinate against it. Why do you think it's a way to ex…

Let's say that we are "pacing the frontier", and an approved model goes and causes billions of damage, or worse, loss of life. The auditor signed off on the model, so who is to blame? Who put their akin in the game? METR did. The public did. But it seems like the lab has crafted a system in which they remain blameless. The calculus of risk is fundamentally different when the adverse consequences are obvious and tangi…

Again, you're presenting ideas that I just don't understand where they're coming from. Why would the lab be blameless in such a situation? You and I and METR and the public would all want the frontier labs to face adverse consequences if their products caused huge problems, so who would give them immunity and why?
Post reply on HN