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

271–277 of 277 posts

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

#271

Post by deagle50 »

frm88 wrote: post #228
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. No you won't. The US president, yesterday: U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday likened critics of artificial intelligence to "very negative forces" bringing up scenarios that will not happen, and said he wanted to make sure that the U.S. remains the industry leader. "We're leading China in AI. We're the most sophisticated country in the world, and f…

This didn't age well. False flag security incident implicating open source LLM is next.

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

#272

Post by Digory »

whatshisface wrote: post #119
Digory wrote: post #91

They seem to be okay with an American slowdown, even though the Chinese won’t slow down. So maybe they want something the Chinese already have: liability protection. The models spontaneously hack everything important without shame. The frontier labs are going to get enjoined and regulated twelve ways to Sunday if the Feds don’t socialize the costs.

It's already against the law to hack...

And that's the crisis. They're about to get sued, prosecuted, and enjoined from every American jurisdiction.

They need the feds to give them protection from every podunk trial court in America.

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

#274

Post by jamienk »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #226
jamienk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://hugovergnes.github.io/little-lm-3-8b/ Remember how DeepSeek v.whatever cost ~$5m Stable Diffusion 1.5 was reportedly $70k in compute.

None of those are frontier models, nor could they have been. E.g. DeepSeek's "$5 million" included piggybacking off OpenAI/Anthropic's hundreds of millions/billions by using distillation.

1) I don't think "frontier model" is a term of art, it is a marketing term. I have an M1 MacBook Pro. What do you have? Always the "frontier model" laptop? Do you always order the most expensive "frontier menu item" at the bar and grill?

2) I do not believe the "billions" number is OpenAI/Anthropic's training costs. I suspect it includes business expenses (including the big $$ to the guy who came up with "frontier model") and infrastructure, etc. That includes the data-center costs for running the cloud. And the "R&D" expenses which includes who-knows-what. And the settlement payment for data access. Etc. Why are the cost breakdowns not available to the public? Not because of thoughtfulness, altruism, care for the human race, but because of business plans.

3) "Piggybacking off OpenAI/Anthropic" - Scraping the web is "piggybacking" too, and so is buying existing data or even paying for new data. The "L" in LLM stands for "language" which is our common heritage.

But what does this have to do with anything anyway? People argue that truly Free (FOSS) LLMs couldn't be be developed because of costs, but I do not think that that is obvious. This used to be the argument against Linux and Wikipedia.

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

#275

Post by [deleted] »

hollerith wrote: post #270
deagle50 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why haven't they stopped?

Many researchers have quit. The number of workers in the field who've warned the public that the field is a potent danger is quite unprecedented: I can't think of any other field with as many insiders turned critics. Why haven't they all quit? Many people find power, prestige, the public spotlight or money so compelling that they'll keep on pursuing the thing even if they know the way they're going about it is morall…

[deleted]

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

#276

Post by bigyabai »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #260
bigyabai wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But hacking has always been a vulnerability, even pre-AI. The scale multiplier here is the number of vulnerable machines, not the intelligence of AI. > An ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure. It can be, but if you get chemotherapy on a hunch instead of a diagnosis then it could kill you instead. There is no evidence that RSI will ever exist.

>There is no evidence that RSI will ever exist. So we wait until it's actively happening to do anything about it?

Yeah. Do you think we should regulate Red Mercury just in case someone figures out how to build a nuke with it?

Red mercury and RSI are both science fiction psyops. They do not exist.

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

#277

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

jamienk wrote: post #274
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are frontier models, nor could they have been. E.g. DeepSeek's "$5 million" included piggybacking off OpenAI/Anthropic's hundreds of millions/billions by using distillation.

1) I don't think "frontier model" is a term of art, it is a marketing term. I have an M1 MacBook Pro. What do you have? Always the "frontier model" laptop? Do you always order the most expensive "frontier menu item" at the bar and grill? 2) I do not believe the "billions" number is OpenAI/Anthropic's training costs. I suspect it includes business expenses (including the big $$ to the guy who came up with "frontier mo…

Just regarding "frontier model", it is most definitely not just a marketing term. It was borrowed from the financial concept of "efficient frontier", i.e. the best performance at a particular cost, though in the context of things like "pacing the frontier" it refers to the highest capability models. ECI (Epoch Capability Index) is probably the most commonly used metric of overall capability: https://epoch.ai/eci?view=graph&tab=release-date

"What this has to do with anything anyway" is that pushing the boundaries on AI capabilities has required tons of compute (and money). Open weight models exist and are useful but they always trail in capabilities and they can't be used as evidence to think somehow you can push the boundaries of LLMs without a shit ton of money.

Post reply on HN