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

On DeepSeek and export controls

darioamodei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 185 posts

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#151

Post by hellojesus »

ironhaven wrote: post #137
hellojesus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 1 Section 8 does not enumerate Congress with the power to provide healthcare, so Medicaid should onoy be a state level program. I know removing it harms those at the low end of the income spectrum, and that is a bummer, but I really would prefer Congress ammend the Constitution instead of just passing laws of which they have no authority to pass.

Well according to the unitary executive theory the US president has complete authority over all government actions and congress is only able to give legitimacy to the president's actions. Under this regime the president would be allowed to stop the execution of any law passed by congress. I think this is insane and a complete destruction of the balance of power written in the constitution that congress can't enact en…

> UET is a constitutional law theory that gives the President sole authority over the executive branch.

I think UET applies only to the Executive branch, which to me makes sense as he is the head of the Executive branch.

It would seem a violation of checks and balances for Congress to be able to install unfirable persons in the Executive. The checks and balances come from Congress's subpoena and investigatory powers, which can ultimately result in impeachment and removal of office of the President if he is derelict in his duties of executing the laws set forth by Congress.

Though I would agree that UET would violate the balance of the Constitution if it applied outside the Executive branch.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#152

Post by suraci »

MiiMe19 wrote: post #143
suraci wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you're chinese you'll know some chinese were sterilized because they _didn't_ believe in a religion muslims were pardoned of child policy because of their ethnics, it's a privilege of them people can not imagine something they never saw, try dig your own history, you'll find why it's always about religonal genocide, religonal sterilization, and religonal concentration camps

I am not talking about the one child policy here. I am talking about the ongoing sterilizations of Uyghurs.

then it will be more ridiculous

there're 55 minority ethics in china, and china sterilization one single ethic and spares all others, for what???

double check your source next time, adrian zenz? wuc? or the us embassy?

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#153

Post by suraci »

inglor_cz wrote: post #145
suraci wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, from the historical perspective, it's more easy(or equally hard) to achieve a peaceful multipolar world than a eternal unipolar world i mean, all 'rule-based international order' died in history, the Holy Roman Empire, the First Empire of France, and the ancient Chinese empire died in every 300 years even there is no China, even the empire doesn't implode, will africans and south americans be willing to mining…

Can you name a single period of peaceful multipolar world in situations where the Great Powers could actually reach one another militarily? I mean, the fact that the Romans and the Chinese never clashed over future Kazakhstan is not a proof of a peaceful multipolar world. It is simply a corollary of the fact that neither empire was able to expand into the steppe.

so it's equally hard

and, i know you guys don't like it, but that's what communism aims for

it's an extremely glorious and great undertaking that has never been done by our predecessors

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#154

Post by highfrequency »

rcarmo wrote: post #25

I like a lot of what Dario writes, but in this case I just can't follow the reasoning. Everything I've picked up about how DeepSeek did what they did (including going a level lower than CUDA to better take advantage of the limited hardware[1], and the balance of techniques used[2]) points to some very smart Chinese engineers having out-smarted US ones (to put it in terms that matter to US folk, because I'm European a…

He is basically saying, with his inside knowledge of Anthropic's current capabilities: "they did for $5m what we could probably do for $10m or $15m if we launched the training run today without any new optimizations." So on the one hand that's very impressive, both because the cost effectiveness is significantly higher and because even replicating SoTA outside of OpenAI/Anthropic is very difficult. On the other hand, it's not too surprising that a company that needs to economize on compute will find ways to do so; neither Anthropic nor OpenAI would consider it worthwhile to have their best researchers prioritize cutting down on training costs or compute requirements; they have near infinite capital and are focused on breakthroughs in making their best models as good as possible. I don't think it's accurate to say that Deepseek "outsmarted US engineers"; they had a very different objective function than Deepseek, so they pushed much harder on the engineering optimizations for better cost performance.

Everyone seems to rag on OpenAI/Anthropic for spending so much money and take it as a symptom of capitalist waste, but this reality seems great to me - massive amounts of money is basically being funneled from VCs toward progress in machine learning. Once expensive breakthroughs are made, it is only a matter of a few years until people make the engineering optimizations to make those breakthroughs cheap.

Just want to emphasize the progress in cost that Dario highlights: fixed AI capabilities are becoming 4x cheaper every year. That is absolutely insane. US GDP growth averaged 3-4% over the last 250 years and look how far that has taken us. Moore's Law averaged ~40% annual growth in transistor density and look how far that has taken us in just 65 years. 4x growth is AI capability/cost per year is absolutely insane.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#155

Post by beardyw »

Leary wrote: post #32

Dario certainly had no qualms about working with authoritarian regimes when he worked for Baidu! Also, if the US seeks a permanent advantage over China by 2027 with self-replicating AI, so much so that it can dictate whatever terms militarily. Wouldn't that just force China to send a few cruise missiles to TSMC before that happen?

> force China to send a few cruise missiles to TSMC before that happen?

Why on earth would they do that? China considers Taiwan to be rightfully theirs and would consider TMSC to be a valuable asset.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#156

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

MiiMe19 wrote: post #143
suraci wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you're chinese you'll know some chinese were sterilized because they _didn't_ believe in a religion muslims were pardoned of child policy because of their ethnics, it's a privilege of them people can not imagine something they never saw, try dig your own history, you'll find why it's always about religonal genocide, religonal sterilization, and religonal concentration camps

I am not talking about the one child policy here. I am talking about the ongoing sterilizations of Uyghurs.

[flagged]

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#157

Post by hellojesus »

breakitmakeit wrote: post #141
hellojesus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, it would be more moral to allow charity to cover healthcare for low wealth individuals over a government provided solution. But even supposing a government funded solution is best, why push to the feds what could be solved by the state?

That is... bonkers. At the risk of feeding a troll, I find it difficult to take the argument that voluntary contributions to public health through charity is more "moral", which in the case of health care I would argue is equivalent to "effective", than a system implemented by an organization with enormous power (the government) which at least theoretically has a direct duty to its stake holders (voters), who in turn…

I assure you I'm no troll. I think difference in our perspectives is that I form the basis of my "moral" at the individual vs. the collective.

"Moral" for me means that individuals are empowered to own their private property and should only need to sacrifice it to society for public goods, where I take the economic definition of a private good: nonrivalous and nonexcludable.

Forcing all persons to pay taxes to cover healthcare for only a subset of the population is, to me, akin to forcing all your friends to give to the charity you like because you like that charity and want it to be able to do more, where that more is a level of spending above what you can or are willing to provide.

Economically, this creates deadweight loss: people's individual preferences are violated because they are forced to spend money for something of which they receive no benefit, or at least the direct/indirect utility occupies a lower utility than the opportunity cost of those specific taxes.

I'm not saying that such a policy won't result in undue death. But since I use the individual as the basis for morality, I consider it more moral to have some death than it is to steal from others to prevent it.

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#158

Post by suraci »

inglor_cz wrote: post #147
scilro wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US unipolar hegemony has averted an all-out war, but it has also been very bloody, or at least immiserating, for people at its periphery. Multipolarity doesn't imply we go back to the 1910s. The idea would be to strengthen multilateral institutions that put a check on things like the World Wars.

Humans are pretty much the same as they were in the 1910s, or the entire history before. If there is anything that keeps us from tearing each other's throats out, it is a) democracy, which in most countries makes going into a war of aggression somewhat harder (I know, the US is a huge exception, but Trump I. was partially elected on the basis of Clinton being perceived as a war hawk), and b) the intuition that weapon…

> democracy, which in most countries makes going into a war of aggression somewhat harder

no, it's just because some countrys lost their power of aggression, nothing related to democracy

the US is not the only one with dirty hands, every NATO member is part of it

just check France, the only reason it doesn't colonize african anymore is it's too weak

not a single french voter gives a fk about what france is doing in africa

Re: On DeepSeek and export controls

#160

Post by femiagbabiaka »

MiiMe19 wrote: post #118
krapp wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all the poor are simply lazy, and you yourself have never ever benefited from the collective labor of society.

You do not deserve to eat just by existing (unless you are disabled or medically cannot work). Saying this is true implies that you have a right to other people's labor, which you do not.

Land, water, air and light used to produce food are not owned by any particular human either. The monopolization of that land (at the point of a gun most often) is the beginning of the issue. The overuse of that land, often subsidized heavily by taxpayers, in order to generate exorbitant profit for the few is a rot in human society. Those owners are the actual ones who don't work and expect a reward for it
Post reply on HN