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

White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#101

Post by thedevilslawyer »

segmondy wrote: post #41
aurareturn wrote: post #12

* Maybe Anthropic's call for regulation has backfired. Now it's going to be overregulation. They might regret it now. * This might be regulatory capture for OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic. Any new entrant will have a harder time getting approval. * This is going to be terrible for the industry in general because this administration will not hesitate to demand bribes and force their propaganda into the models. * This m…

Nah, Anthropic would love this. They definitely don't want you using KimiK2.6, DeepSeekV4Pro, GLM5.1, MiniMax2.7, MimoV2.5-Pro, Qwen3.5-397B, Step3.5Flash, because, truth be told. You can survive fine without Claude.

This will not stop 8 billion other people in the world. After all, it is a competitive global world out there.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#102

Post by aurareturn »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #89
aurareturn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China !== Chinese LLM labs.

Sure but those are still profitable enough without trying to take over the world. Even with free models. Not every new idea is worth 20 trillion dollars. I think most small companies are happy to take home a few billion.

None of them are profitable. The industry will consolidate and the consolidated company will need to make money.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#103

Post by 2ndorderthought »

aurareturn wrote: post #102
2ndorderthought wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but those are still profitable enough without trying to take over the world. Even with free models. Not every new idea is worth 20 trillion dollars. I think most small companies are happy to take home a few billion.

None of them are profitable. The industry will consolidate and the consolidated company will need to make money.

Alibaba was almost measuring profit in the trillions of dollars profit last year. They make the qwen models. Sure their profit is driven by another vertical, but I don't think they are in any danger of having cash flow issues. Supposedly they have already broken even because they had serious business needs for LLMs. And again that vertical is complimented by their investment. It draws in ad revenue, customer support, etc.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#104

Post by croon »

aurareturn wrote: post #48
idle_zealot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cookie prompt is a perfect example of under regulation. The law you're citing as over-regulation requires companies to get consent before tracking you. Companies across the board settled on "annoy users into consenting" as their compliance strategy. You want to revert to implied consent? Fuck that, layer on "also you can't pester users into agreeing to being tracked." Too vague? That's the point; anything else an…

This is over regulation because regulation always have unintended consequences. The unintended consequence is the cookie prompt. And before someone comes out saying that only "bad" websites want to track you, the official European Union website has a cookie prompt. https://commission.europa.eu/index_en

The page you linked has an "Accept all" and an "Accept necessary" button, and it's instant when you click the "necessary" button, or have it scripted. They opt-in for collecting third party data for analytics.

If they hadn't, or self-hosted analytics they wouldn't need the prompt at all.

Any site that is slower/more hidden to opt out is non-compliant, and is not an example of over regulation but under enforcement.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#105

Post by croon »

aurareturn wrote: post #72
idle_zealot wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they could not collect unnecessary user data. They chose to waste users' time. If you don't like that we can always punish them for those billions of wasted hours.

Collecting user usage data is the basic step to actually understanding how your users use your website so you can improve it. It's so standard that even the official EU government website collects this kind of data and has a cookie prompt. And you know what irks me the most? These politicians weren't smart enough to write a law that does this to all digital places. Yes, they only wrote this law for websites while app…

> Collecting user usage data is the basic step to actually understanding how your users use your website so you can improve it.

You can do that without a cookie prompt if you don't send it off to a third-party.

I rather like knowing which companies do and don't.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#106

Post by aurareturn »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #103
aurareturn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of them are profitable. The industry will consolidate and the consolidated company will need to make money.

Alibaba was almost measuring profit in the trillions of dollars profit last year. They make the qwen models. Sure their profit is driven by another vertical, but I don't think they are in any danger of having cash flow issues. Supposedly they have already broken even because they had serious business needs for LLMs. And again that vertical is complimented by their investment. It draws in ad revenue, customer support,…

I'd love to be wrong but I don't see how Chinese frontier models will keep getting released for free. I'm pretty sure Qwen no longer releases their flagship models to the public.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#107

Post by aurareturn »

croon wrote: post #105
aurareturn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collecting user usage data is the basic step to actually understanding how your users use your website so you can improve it. It's so standard that even the official EU government website collects this kind of data and has a cookie prompt. And you know what irks me the most? These politicians weren't smart enough to write a law that does this to all digital places. Yes, they only wrote this law for websites while app…

> Collecting user usage data is the basic step to actually understanding how your users use your website so you can improve it. You can do that without a cookie prompt if you don't send it off to a third-party. I rather like knowing which companies do and don't.

Most websites can’t afford to roll their own backend analytics.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#108

Post by techblueberry »

tombert wrote: post #16

How the fuck would this even be enforced? "AI model" is a pretty broad thing; in some sense basically anything involving weights could be considered "AI", and even more abstractly you could argue that even a runtime conditional is AI.

> How the fuck would this even be enforced?

Selectively, by whatever standard the administration desires in the whims of the moment.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#109

Post by croon »

aurareturn wrote: post #107
croon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Collecting user usage data is the basic step to actually understanding how your users use your website so you can improve it. You can do that without a cookie prompt if you don't send it off to a third-party. I rather like knowing which companies do and don't.

Most websites can’t afford to roll their own backend analytics.

OpenPanel, Plausible, Umami, Matamo.

But we're digressing. The point is the regulation is very good for data integrity and the general public.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#110

Post by aurareturn »

croon wrote: post #109
aurareturn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most websites can’t afford to roll their own backend analytics.

OpenPanel, Plausible, Umami, Matamo. But we're digressing. The point is the regulation is very good for data integrity and the general public.

Check out the outrageous pricing on Matmo: https://matomo.org/pricing/

Holy cow. 1m views = $204.

You have to be kidding me right? This is not an alternative.

Post reply on HN