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

251–260 of 269 posts

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

#251

Post by anon291 »

preommr wrote: post #75
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."

> 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…

It's not talked about because the media frames AI as having agency on its own, which it does not. This talk from these companies of 'losing control' (no control was lost... Companies failed to monitor the workings of their agents) is meant to convince people the ai systems have wills of their own

The AI company's goal is to make ai agents a separate subject of the law so the CEO and executives who would normally be held accountable get to go Scot free.

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

#252

Post by anon291 »

charlieyu1 wrote: post #237
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."

Why are we having drama queens like Dario leading enterprises worth billions suddenly?

I hope his shareholders sue him to oblivion

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

#253

Post by freejazz »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #214
freejazz wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's publicly documented throughout the years of coverage of him on this and other websites

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

#254

Post by freejazz »

kypro wrote: post #8
Insanity wrote: post #3

They’ll slow down not because they “are worried” but because their improvements are stagnating as they hit financial and technical challenges.

> because their improvements are stagnating as they hit financial and technical challenges. I don't mean to be rude, but how is it even possible for someone to hold this opinion in mid-2026? Can you explain why you believe this?

>Can you explain why you believe this?

Well, as a starter, I've been told that AI will take my job for at least 3 years now. That's not happening. In fact, what's happening is that I now have an AI vendor BEGGING me to use their product, which of course, cannot do my job.

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

#255

Post by roboror »

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.

They also want to implement self-regulation now instead of waiting for actual government watchdogs to be implemented.

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

#256

Post by tacticalturtle »

pembrook wrote: post #234
tacticalturtle wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who were the mainstream voices saying this? My layman definition is it’s the people writing in major newspapers, the people getting paid by CNN to sit in a half circle on their news analysis shows, etc. Is Peter Zeihan “mainstream”? The only time I remember anyone speculating that Russia was in trouble was the short lived Wagner Rebellion - because nothing like it had happened before. But that lasted … two days?

Going on Joe Rogan and having a million YouTube followers is absolutely the modern definition of mainstream. Also you appear to have been living in a different algorithmic bubble. Joe Biden was literally on stage multiple times saying everything I listed. If a democrat US president isnt mainstream, I don’t think your assessment of reality is accurate.

Joe Rogan also famously had Alex Jones and Bob Lazar, multiple times as a guest… I wouldn’t turn around and claim that makes them mainstream.

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

#257

Post by 3tyy »

pembrook wrote: post #65

I don't agree with Sacks always but he's 100% correct here. I heavily use frontier models daily, and quite frankly their capabilities are just not very relevant outside of a narrow subset of software engineering tasks and the production of generic white collar "deliverables." We're many years into $10s of billions of dollars being thrown at coding as a problem space specifically, and its one of the areas with the MOS…

Put simply the gamble of frontier labs has failed now they’re desperate.

They need to buy time and protection and hope for a major break through to create escape velocity.

Btw I’d hire you - email?

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

#258

Post by pianopatrick »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #249
pianopatrick wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's just physically impossible for this to go on for long" I mean, my uneducated guess is that it's probably within the laws of physics for us to have at least 100x as much compute in the world as there is now. There would be a lot of engineering challenges, but I think it's physically possible. If so, OAI could double for at least a few more years.

I can't speak for every country, but I feel the irresistible force of datacentre construction will eventually get mired in the the immovable objects of British NIMBYism and high electricity prices. I've seen more local opposition to datacentres than anything else, and the fact we have discretionary planning (which can't be abolished for political reasons, despite it amounting to putting economic sanctions on ourselve…

Well, that's fine. The great thing about them is you can build them anywhere in the world and people can just access them over the internet.

It probably does make sense to build them close to the natural gas wells or other sources of power anyways.

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

#259

Post by deagle50 »

davej wrote: post #235
preommr wrote: 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…

> If they feel confident and they get it wrong, they should be sued to kingdom come. The argument that they’re making is that if there is a catastrophic mistake then there may not be a “kingdom come”. I don’t know enough to evaluate if it’s a genuinely held belief or not, but that’s the argument being made by many scientists and engineers at the labs.

Then why haven't they stopped?

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

#260

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

bigyabai wrote: post #224
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Bioweapons and RSI are pie-in-the-sky theories that distract from the real-world situation It wasn't long ago when automated hacking was a pie-in-the-sky theory. Sometimes it's helpful to prepare for things in advance. An ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure.

But hacking has always been a vulnerability, even pre-AI. The scale multiplier here is the number of vulnerable machines, not the intelligence of AI. > An ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure. It can be, but if you get chemotherapy on a hunch instead of a diagnosis then it could kill you instead. There is no evidence that RSI will ever exist.

>There is no evidence that RSI will ever exist.

So we wait until it's actively happening to do anything about it?

Post reply on HN