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

141–150 of 264 posts

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

#141

Post by AnimalMuppet »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #78
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.

> 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…

> RSI with misaligned models, where interpretability is worse every 6 months, is incredibly dangerous.

This. So very much this. Misalignment (among other things) means that the parent in the RSI cycle isn't going to be working as hard on the alignment of the children as we need.

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

#142

Post by [deleted] »

bbor wrote: post #133
dannykwells wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. The goal is positioning a duopoly / cartel as the only “safe” and “moral” path and then that cartel sets pace and price.

Source? Just "that's a plausible motivation"? Cause that's pretty terrible proof.

[deleted]

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

#143

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jbeyer wrote: post #115
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…

> just double down on prosecuting crimes. That quote comes from someone that has never tried to get law enforcement to pursue a case. Local or state police are completely unequipped to respond. And FBI is unlikely to get involved unless damage is high six figures. We had an incident where we had a ton of evidence pointing to a past employee. It would have been an incredibly easy case for the FBI. They didn't have the…

High six figures? I suspect there's going to be something well past that in the near future.

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

#144

Post by dehrmann »

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.

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

#145

Post by mopsi »

pembrook wrote: post #138
toss1 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to avoid that topic on HN, but DS' takes on the Ukraine ware were the MOST atrocious, amoral, and just plain wrong, basically suggesting Ukraine should just give up because Russia would win anyway. Nevermind that any decent person would support a people's right to live and determine their own future without a neighboring despot using all his nation's might to literally eliminate them as a people. Quite t…

So to clarify...your position is that: it's better that Ukraine has been completely decimated and half a million have died fighting an un-winnable war...instead of taking lesser concessions upfront than they will ultimately have to make for this thing to end? Russia was clearly in the wrong here, and I wish Ukraine could win, but reality exists, and we kind of have to anchor our decisions based on it or suffer the co…

  > to make for this thing to end
Why should it end after concessions? You've just validated their strategy.

There is surprisingly little realism among the crowd calling themselves realists.

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

#146

Post by Zigurd »

nba456_ wrote: post #10

He's right that if all the frontier labs are in agreement that they should slow down, they don't need the government to do that.

LMFTFY: If all the LLM pure plays who are stuck between impossible valuations and the inability to IPO are in agreement that they should colludes to conserve capital, they might not flame out before they figure out how to fix their numbers, and they might not be seen as admitting that more training data plus more GPUs will never lead to AGI.

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

#147

Post by kennywinker »

bbor wrote: post #133
dannykwells wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. The goal is positioning a duopoly / cartel as the only “safe” and “moral” path and then that cartel sets pace and price.

Source? Just "that's a plausible motivation"? Cause that's pretty terrible proof.

You don't need to ask for sources, when what is being said is clearly opinion. The source is the person who posted it.

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

#148

Post by AnimalMuppet »

kvetching wrote: post #100
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."

If they were really worried about the models of the future, they should be accelerating their hardening efforts. They should be trying to speed up progress as much as possible so that all vulnerabilities can be patched before China gets there. There's a world where the labs WANT Open Source AI to cause a disaster. Pacing the frontier just means giving bad actors an opportunity to create an AI disaster which would for…

Hacking the internet includes things like "hacking banks", "hacking power plants", "hacking water treatment plants", and "hacking cars". How about "hacking vote counting machines"?

Hardening everything is in fact part of the answer. Getting stuff disconnected from the internet that shouldn't be connected is also part.

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

#150

Post by threecheese »

pianopatrick wrote: post #116
asdfman123 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public perception is another big one. But I think with the way AI is slated to grow exponentially it's going to hit electricity limits very soon. Big tech can build a huge data center in 5 years but scaling up the electrical infrastructure is mired in red tape and can take on the order of decades.

Someone will likely come up with some clever way to make AI use less electricity. There's probably something in how you design the models or chips or some other thing that will be figured out over the next 5 - 10 years to make these use dramatically less electricity.

Without pressure, the release valves will never be invented. Electricity, datacenter, and DRAM demand outstripping supply sounds like an opportunity - if we can only find a way to divert funding from the current gpu/ai funnel. Maybe jack up corporate tax rates like the 1970s, then every corporate office park will have a research lab :).
Post reply on HN