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

OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 845 posts

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#251

Post by slt2021 »

UncleEntity wrote: post #43
kelseyfrog wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's correct. Voluntary association advocated by anarchy is the only truly free social model.

I heard rumblings about some sort of system where power is shared equally across three branches of government with checks and balances to ensure one branch doesn't go rogue and just do whatever they want. Forget what they called it, united something or other.

whatever you had in mind, thats definitely not the USA, where money/lobbying and inter-partisan corruption trump everything

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#252

Post by bakuninsbart »

tdeck wrote: post #238
hnlurker22 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like when people complain about OpenAI's ill practices then they use it the most

Can anyone say which of the LLM companies is the least "shady"? If I want to use an LLM to augment my work, and don't have a massively powerful local machine to run local models, what are the best options? Obviously I saw the news about OpenAI's head of research openly supporting war crimes, but I don't feel confident about what's up with the other companies.

The Claude people seem to be quite chill.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#253

Post by amelius »

TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #23
sega_sai wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how this "freedom to learn" should apply to models, but not real people..

It already applies to real people, doesn't it? I.e. if you read a book, you're not allowed to start printing and selling copies of that book without permission of the copyright owner, but if you learn something from that book you can use that knowledge, just like a model could.

Do you know Numerical Recipes in C?

This discussion reminds me of it.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#255

Post by the_optimist »

tdeck wrote: post #234
yadaeno wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why this is associated with fascism specifically, and not any other form of government which has high levels of oligarchical corruption (like North Korea, Soviet Russia, etc). I am not saying you’re wrong, but please educate me why is this form of corruption/cronyism is unique to fascism?

It might be basic, but I found the Wikipedia article to be a good place to start: > An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[35] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but…

It’s a poor definition. The same “subsidization and directive influence” applies to all of Krugman’s Nobel-wining domestic champion, emerging market development leaders, in virtually all ‘successful’ economies. It also applies in the context of badly run, failed and failing economies. Safe to say this factor is only somewhat correlated. Broad assertions are going to be factually wrong.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#256

Post by armchairhacker »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #42

It probably needs to be a law not an executive order but I don't hate the idea. States have the power to make it prohibitively expensive to operate in those states, leaving people to either go to VPNs or use AI's hosted in other countries where they don't care if they're not following whatever new AI law California decides to pass. And companies would choose just to use datacenters not in the prohibitive states and b…

Your argument for regulation is...reasons why it works out without regulation, and is already covered by existing regulations?

Granted the "regulation" I'm referring to above is a law or EO to block California's regulation, and I don't support California's regulation either. But I believe regulations should only exist when there's no better alternative, because they usually have unintended consequences. If it's true that OpenAI can basically just leave California, the better alternative for the government may be doing nothing.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#257

Post by [deleted] »

sega_sai wrote: post #22
dchichkov wrote: post #8

>> In the proposal, OpenAI also said the U.S. needs “a copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” and on “preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.” Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models, with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited in this way, while labs in China are not.

I like how this "freedom to learn" should apply to models, but not real people..

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#258

Post by amelius »

bee_rider wrote: post #141
TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It already applies to real people, doesn't it? I.e. if you read a book, you're not allowed to start printing and selling copies of that book without permission of the copyright owner, but if you learn something from that book you can use that knowledge, just like a model could.

These AI models are just obviously new things. They aren’t people, so any analogy about learning from the training material and selling your new skills is off base. On the other hand, they aren’t just a copy of the training content, and whether the process that creates the weights is sufficiently transformative as to create a new work is… what’s up for debate, right? Anyway I wish people would stop making these analo…

Totally agree. Except the current administration probably will interpret things the way they see fit ...

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#259

Post by myaccountonhn »

bnchrch wrote: post #245

Maybe in a present: - Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright - Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet) and a future where: - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing) That maybe, just maybe…

> We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing)

We don’t have that and we don’t know if it will happen. Meanwhile, people put in time to create work and they are being exploited by not being paid. I think openai should pay.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#260

Post by pclmulqdq »

hayst4ck wrote: post #212
echelon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulatory moat and copyright relief for me, but not for thee.

Moat is an Orwellian word and we should reject words that contain a conceptual metaphor that is convenient for abusing power. "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense rather than an assault on the free market by implying that monopolistic behavior is a survival strategy rather than an attempt to dominate the market and coerce customers. "We need to build a moat" is much more agreeable to tell e…

A "moat" is a fine business term for what it relates to, and most moats are innocuous:

* The secret formula for Coke

* ASML's technology

* The "Gucci" brand

* Apple's network effects

These are genuine competitive advantages in the market. Regulatory moats and other similar things are an assault on the free market. Moats in general are not.

Post reply on HN