Policy on the AI Exponential

Post by WhiteOwlLion » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 11:52 PM UTC

avaer wrote: post #70

iamniels wrote: post #20

I like that he comes up with new laws and regulations for AI companies. Can I suggest some more? - You shall not embed copyrighted material in your models. - You shall not bombard every little website in existence with 1 million scraping queries per day. - You shall not use your political influence to pump and dump your AI (or rocket?) company. - You shall not imperill the whole IT sector by buying all CPU and memory…

DMCA-style fines should be retroactively + prospectively applied to copyrighted works reproduced by AI, paid for by the AI companies, paid out to the copyright holders whose work was used without permission. It would not be prohibitively hard to do the math on this. That would fix a lot of the problems with AI overnight, but it'll also never happen.

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 11:58 PM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #189

tptacek wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's what this is, a bank-shot snarky criticism of the proposal, fair enough. I read it instead as a criticism of a stakeholder having the temerity to make a proposal in the first place. It's not their job to anticipate and capture all your objections. That's your job!

Everyone holds a stake in this discussion. And intellectual honesty is everyone's obligation.

Post by andrekandre » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 12:03 AM UTC

oudlys wrote: post #152

aspenmartin wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the data here but I don't think the read is quite right; Saying we have linear capability for super-linear cost compares an unbounded variable (dollars) to bounded instruments (because benchmarks saturate). On unbounded measures, growth is exponential; you can see METR time horizons double every ~4-7 months ( https://metr.org/blog/2026-1-29-time-horizon-1-1/ ). And capability being proportional to log(co…

>"On unbounded measures, growth is exponential" Maybe. There was a great comment in the thread on Fable 5 yesterday about benchmark comparisons between Fable and the latest opus models. here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48464600 . You could be right, but this is the most direct benchmark comparison I could find and it's not that strong. >the "destroying value" conclusion flips sign on an assumed 15% ba…

  > But even if it were not true, a 16% throughput improvement is pretty weak given the investment - especially given the direct evidence of quality degradation. IMO.

Post by shimman » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 12:06 AM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #171

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the public at large are the stakeholders. The enterprise is the subject of the regulation.

"Stakeholder" literally means someone with a stake in the outcome, which is to say, those who will be affected by the decision. That can include a whole range of people+entities, including citizens (as a group) and the companies to be regulated.

Post by patcon » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 12:24 AM UTC

polishTar wrote: post #122

patcon wrote: post #38

The comments here. They make me feel that we are so doomed. We all want to nuclear codes so badly. We are addicted to intelligence and labour so badly that we simply can't concieve that a pro-social actor might want us all not to have it, and for good reason. I mean... Obviously, insiders like Oppenheimer (who dedicated their lives to considering the implications of the technology under discussion), they just feared…

Look - it's WAY more fun to just call Dario a goober than engage with the actual substance of the essay. Duh! Sure, this may be the most important invention ever with near certainty to reshape society over the next few years, but meh. We should probably just immediately dismiss the concerns of anyone working on it without addressing their arguments at all. It's easy, we can justify ignoring their warnings by saying t…