Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

#41

Post by oceanplexian »

toasty228 wrote: post #20
badsectoracula wrote: post #11

> Amodei, meanwhile, outlined some very specific things he wants from Washington: Stop selling Nvidia chips to China so its AI companies can’t build better models, and a crackdown on model distillation. You have to be the embodiment of hubris to believe the only reason a technologically advanced country of 1.4 billion people with several AI labs and government support can make competitive models is because they all d…

They have such a weird and outdated view of China, it's almost comical. It's like America's answer to everything bad coming to them is protectionism. They still think China is a third world country with a bunch of factories and polluting industries not able to do anything else other than manufacturing products for foreign companies

It goes both ways. It has been almost 10 years since I visited the PRC but the air and water were heavily polluted with industrial waste, outside the tier 1 cities people were living in makeshift subsistence tin housing, and it wasn’t uncommon to see farmers using oxcarts.

There’s a reason China has a GDP per capita somewhere around that of Argentina.

Of course, they also have futuristic cities, maglev, and plenty of brilliant engineers and scientists, therefore it makes sense to be pragmatic. But there are a lot people talking up China because they hate the US and are bought into a massive propaganda / influencer campaign.

Re: Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

#42

Post by ultrarunner »

mcshicks wrote: post #39

I think there is an obvious example in the FAA of a successful safety regulation of another potentially dangerous technology industry. A similar agency would seem to me like a logical starting point. I did some minor work a long time ago in commercial avionics software and while it was a very tedious process I did have confidence in it. Obviously a lot of things would have to be different but the basic structure of d…

And what has the FAA done to both costs and innovation?

Re: Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

#43

Post by toasty228 »

oceanplexian wrote: post #41
toasty228 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have such a weird and outdated view of China, it's almost comical. It's like America's answer to everything bad coming to them is protectionism. They still think China is a third world country with a bunch of factories and polluting industries not able to do anything else other than manufacturing products for foreign companies

It goes both ways. It has been almost 10 years since I visited the PRC but the air and water were heavily polluted with industrial waste, outside the tier 1 cities people were living in makeshift subsistence tin housing, and it wasn’t uncommon to see farmers using oxcarts. There’s a reason China has a GDP per capita somewhere around that of Argentina. Of course, they also have futuristic cities, maglev, and plenty of…

> outside the tier 1 cities people were living in makeshift subsistence tin housing

Having visited the US a few times it felt that way too

Re: Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

#44

Post by toasty228 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #25
toasty228 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything it'll speed up their progress by forcing local solutions. https://www.heise.de/en/news/DeepSeek-orders-160-000-Huawei-...

> According to Bloomberg, supply bottlenecks for high-end memory and other key components could limit chip production this year. Since Huawei also has to serve other customers, DeepSeek might have to wait over a year for the full delivery, estimates Bloomberg. Like I said, it will delay the Chinese labs for a couple years. These are not even top-line chips. Frankly, China was not going to allow them to depend on NVID…

They'll build five data centers by the time that 1m wide pot hole on your local highway ramp gets a (half assed) fix.

Re: Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

#46

Post by mcshicks »

ultrarunner wrote: post #42
mcshicks wrote: post #39

I think there is an obvious example in the FAA of a successful safety regulation of another potentially dangerous technology industry. A similar agency would seem to me like a logical starting point. I did some minor work a long time ago in commercial avionics software and while it was a very tedious process I did have confidence in it. Obviously a lot of things would have to be different but the basic structure of d…

And what has the FAA done to both costs and innovation?

I'm getting on a plane tomorrow. I think I would prefer a world with the FAA than one without it.

Re: Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

#47

Post by rglover »

altcognito wrote: post #34
rglover wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China played the smart long game and took advantage of America's ignorance and short-sighted thinking. They already "won" in the sense that they outmaneuvered the U.S. because they relied on flaws in human nature (specifically, greed). Their moves around AI are just more of the same clever behavior. I don't agree with all of their means for getting here, but to accomplish what they have in ~30 or so years [1] should…

China deliberately adopted western style market institutions. They joined the WTO. No, they aren't a fully westernized market, but they are closer to a competitive marketplace than the state dictating all of what will or will not be built. I'm confused, what has America and the west lost the plot on? You would have preferred the west to exploit China more? This framing of a zero sum game is counterproductive.

> This framing of a zero sum game is counterproductive.

I agree but that's not at all what I was getting at. Quite the opposite. The mistake America made, what made it vulnerable, was playing everything like a zero sum game. We're in the early days of that behavior coming to roost.

Re: Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

#48

Post by bpodgursky »

toasty228 wrote: post #44
bpodgursky wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to Bloomberg, supply bottlenecks for high-end memory and other key components could limit chip production this year. Since Huawei also has to serve other customers, DeepSeek might have to wait over a year for the full delivery, estimates Bloomberg. Like I said, it will delay the Chinese labs for a couple years. These are not even top-line chips. Frankly, China was not going to allow them to depend on NVID…

They'll build five data centers by the time that 1m wide pot hole on your local highway ramp gets a (half assed) fix.

They will build data centers but not have the chips to put in them until 2028. I don't know why you're arguing about things I'm not saying.

Re: Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

#50

Post by superxpro12 »

amluto wrote: post #29
badsectoracula wrote: post #11

> Amodei, meanwhile, outlined some very specific things he wants from Washington: Stop selling Nvidia chips to China so its AI companies can’t build better models, and a crackdown on model distillation. You have to be the embodiment of hubris to believe the only reason a technologically advanced country of 1.4 billion people with several AI labs and government support can make competitive models is because they all d…

It’s not only hubris — I think it’s actively counterproductive. The US could choose to: (a) Sell many billions of dollars of fancy chips to China, thus bringing in billions of dollars of money and billions of dollars of trade balance improvement. And let China continue to build models quickly when they seem oddly happy to export the trained weights for free. Or (b) Decline to do so, thus reducing exports and very ver…

This admin is super in favor of isolationist policies right now. Whatever can bring in the most bribes. To the detriment of 99% of the public.
Post reply on HN