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

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#111

Post by RandomLensman »

spwa4 wrote: post #103
RandomLensman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Laws need parliament, no? Just agreeing to it isn't necessarily enough at least in some countries. 2) What laws and sections specifically makes that possible? Are there examples of that happening? 3) Where can I find that interpretation of article 50(?)? Some other article? (To the extent that things would need to be labelled/watermarked etc.)

1) Laws need parliament, no? No. Here is the list of organizations that have the power to make laws in the EU (and JUST the across-the-EU part of that list, within countries, within states, within provinces, within towns there's another list). This is referred to in legal tradition as the "Hierarchy of norms", because there is also a clear order defined. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/eu-hiera...

I think you need to be more precise then on what you mean by "law" and differentiate there and also by what authorises that.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#112

Post by tsimionescu »

mindwok wrote: post #89
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, I just don't buy the AI labs approach to this stuff. Like, unless we can basically simulate the entirety of human biology, I don't really see how LLMs can make progress here. Maths is different as it doesn't require a real-world interface, and programming already (by definition) can be simulated on a computer. Without that, I can't see much (if any) pro…

I'm a noob on this topic, but I think drug discovery is more amenable to this structurally than other problems. Simulating biology is what we were doing with protein folding before Alphafold, and the search space was far too large to find stuff in reasonable timeframes. Alphafold showed that you could take a physical process and make a neural net clever enough to learn just enough structure that it starts finding thi…

There are two relevant problems here, I think.

For one, the question for Anthropic is whether LLMs, specifically, not AI techniques more generally, can help significantly with cancer research. And here, all experience so far is that LLMs only really work when they can easily automatically verify their own outputs and self correct - such as in math (using automatic proof verifiers) or programming (using compilers and unit tests).

The second problem is that biological research speed is highly dependent on slow biological processes, such as cultures and long term studies. In programming, if an LLM could provide excellent insights and research suggestions 100x faster than a human, it would speed up the work roughly 100x. But in biology, it would only speed up the total work by a small amount - as any insight, even if absolutely brilliant and spot on, would still require months and years of actual experimentation.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#113

Post by pjc50 »

podgorniy wrote: post #66
pu_pe wrote: post #12

> Overall my view is that AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws). Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plu…

Swap that point about AI with "electricity". Everything runs on electricity it's "a technology that tends to concentrate power" (no pun intended). The electricity providers must be too powerful... But somehow electricity providers aren't that powerful. Unless there is no competition in sight... The point "AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power" is not that correct. They need this statement to…

Swap that to "oil" and everyone goes "well, yes, obviously, oil is so powerful that people start wars over it".

Iran has hit the Amazon data center in Bahrain. The Ukranian deep drone bombing campaign has hit refineries, but also Wildberries, the "Russian Amazon" warehouses. The US campaign against Iran now, Iraq and Serbia previously, targeted power infrastructure. It will obviously be a target in the next war, and AI goes on that list too.

Every time the US completes an AI data center, someone in the Chinese nuclear command updates their target priority list. And vice versa.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#115

Post by vrganj »

dgellow wrote: post #43
kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

The effective altruist and longtermist crowd are into it as a religion. They would happily sacrifice anything human to satisfy their dreams of AI. They care way more about what the AI needs than their what their fellow humans need. We will end up with an AGI having better living and working conditions than humans and the whole AI industry will be clapping

It's an ideological thing. (We just had a conversation about ideology actually, remember?)

Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions.

For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers meant no production happened.

Now, there's finally a chance at salvation. The capitalist Messiah is AGI and it will finally deliver them from those annoying laborers.

This ideological bent is why they're putting everything they have into AI. It's why VCs and their fellow capitalists are going so crazy.

They see it as a way to finally solve the contradictions of their ideology, but in reality it'd only create a new one: If everyone's out of a job, who will buy their products?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#116

Post by pixelesque »

woadwarrior01 wrote: post #75
pu_pe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which percentage of people have GPUs capable of running Qwen3.8 27B? I am one of those, and for my job I am still resorting to hyperscalers because tasks are completed faster and more accurately that way. Even if we assume that models will no longer improve and we reach a point where everyone can run Fable in their laptop, surely running 1000x Fable agents would give you an advantage. I think access to compute will m…

NVIDIA's 3090 was released in September 2020. Apple's M1 was released ~2 months later. Anyone with a 5 year old M1 Mac with 32GB or more RAM can run a 4-bit quantized version of Qwen3.8 27B on their machine. AFAICT, there are ~110m Apple Silicon Macs in the world. I'd wager that at least ~20% of those have enough memory to run this model. And if you account for gamers with NVIDIA and AMD cards, I'd wager that the seg…

As someone typing this on an M1 Mac with 32 GB of RAM who tried using 3.8 27B (Q4_K_M) yesterday in both LM Studio and llama.cpp, I wouldn't call it particularly usable in terms of token speed. (and that was with `--spec-type draft-mtp` for llama.cpp).

If you want to leave it running with the fans going crazy for 40 mins or overnight or something, fair enough, but otherwise it doesn't seem worth it to me. It's certainly not "interactive", even taking into account the over-thinking it does by default.

The 3.6 (maybe they'll release a 3.8?) MoE model is much more usable (but obviously not as good) on this machine spec.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#117

Post by tornikeo »

mindwok wrote: post #74

I genuinely think Dario is a well intentioned, intelligent dude, but I think him and Anthropic have a huge PR problem and are really out of touch with how they're perceived. Anthropic in particular has developed this almost Orwellian like veil of condescending rhetoric that on the surface suggests they're looking out for you while underneath they're taking actions that suggest they do not trust you, Mr/Mrs Ordinary P…

> I genuinely think Dario is a well intentioned, intelligent dude, but I think him and Anthropic have a huge PR problem

Is this what kids call rage bait these days?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#118

Post by krige »

RandomLensman wrote: post #82
anon-3988 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean they did solve the protein folding problem did they? NOt too far fetch to think it can automate cancer research or problem finding in some way.

There is already (partial) automation there, for example for finding new drug candidates. Isn't that so far only static folding?

As usual with LLM era craze, finding candidates was never the bottleneck. And, so far, it failed to actually provide any tangible results. [0]

[0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/so-how-ai-drug-dis...

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#119

Post by rvba »

RandomLensman wrote: post #62
spwa4 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>The watermarking algorithm itself has a VERY specific property that should have set off everyone's alarm bells: it is NOT the case that you can "check text for AI watermark". What it technically mandates is that if you provide access to a model, those people should be able to check if text is generated by that model. Not by any other model. It is NOT a general "is this AI?" Where do I find that in the Act (or code o…

It sounds like anti EU propaganda.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#120

Post by kilpikaarna »

bananaflag wrote: post #108
kilpikaarna wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI bros consistently handwave away any notions of the material world imposing limits, because (spoiler!) it's a religion where you start from the miracle and work backwards. "Oh, we'll just set up fully automated robotic research labs everywhere!" Where will you get the raw materials? Oh we'll mine the asteroids! How will you find the energy to get there? Oh, the AI will invent new physics! (again without needing to…

> AI bros consistently handwave away any notions of the material world imposing limits, because (spoiler!) it's a religion where you start from the miracle and work backwards. How else are you going to work towards a dream? It's how Elon Musk managed to get reusable rockets when everyone said it's unfeasible. Granted, most ideas don't work, this is why you need testing, but I am a bit surprised to see this attitude o…

Fair enough, but taking the history-ending outcome as given so externalities don't matter doesn't seem like a great approach.
Post reply on HN