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

Why YC went to DC

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 407 posts

Re: Why YC went to DC

#31

Post by romanhn »

superfrank wrote: post #28
siliconc0w wrote: post #9

If you need more things to fix: * Software R&D Amortization - taxes on make-believe profits * Patent law - protect small businesses from patent trolls * Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions. * Healthcare insurance - employees of SMBs automatically get access to medicar…

Can you remind me what the issue with software R&D amortization (or point me to something that explains it)? I remember reading about the issue in the past and thinking it was a problem, but I've forgotten all the details.

I assume they're referring to Section 174 changes. Here's a primer: https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/section-174

Re: Why YC went to DC

#32

Post by no_wizard »

lolinder wrote: post #25
no_wizard wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking the broader view of this nature feels like an attempt to change the narrative. The entire point of having transparency is around building those foundations so they don’t inherit the biases of humans, for starters. Right now, we have zero introspection into this and no ability to improve upon it with the widely deployed models being used today, and that has already created problematic situations, let alone situ…

I'm a big believer in not allowing the pursuit of perfection to cause us to lose sight of the good things that we have. Yes, these open models could stand to be more open and I hope that we'll see that in the future. But at the same time I'm extremely grateful to the companies who have released their weights under reasonable terms. Them doing so has undeniably led to an enormous amount of innovation and collaboration…

>Yes, these open models could stand to be more open and I hope that we'll see that in the future

The most operative word here is hope. Which means we may not see more get open sourced over time. Especially, if there is no pressure for companies to do so.

>If we constantly downplay and disparage the real efforts that companies make to release IP to the world because they don't go as far as we'd like, we're setting ourselves up for a world where companies don't release anything at all.

I don't mean anything as disparagement or downplay, but companies aren't releasing this stuff because it makes everyone feel good. Its a tactic. They're only open sourcing something because they expect to get something out of it. That's fine, I'm all for that. That's a valid reason, and often it can be a 2 way street.

What it isn't though, is an attempt at any company saying "we are open sourcing this today because we want to encourage more transparency and auditability as AI takes on more critical roles in society, to ensure in the domains its being applied, to the best of our ability and the ability of our community, that it does not inherit negative human biases"

Re: Why YC went to DC

#33

Post by sillysaurusx »

reaperman wrote: post #19
AlexErrant wrote: post #5

> Open source AI models allow for greater transparency, collaboration, and innovation by making the underlying code publicly accessible and modifiable. I feel like open models do virtually nothing for transparency, collaboration, or innovation, and are only modifiable in that they can be fine-tuned. It's "open source" training processes and data that will lead to "transparency, collaboration, and innovation", and I'm…

Closest to this would be https://www.eleuther.ai whose training data is largely public and training processes are openly discussed, planned, and evaluated on their Discord server. Much of their training dataset is available at https://the-eye.eu (their onion link is considered "primary", however, due to copyright concerns)

Is our dataset still available? I thought it was taken offline.

Where do you go under that link to get it?

E.g. https://the-eye.eu/public/AI/pile/readme.txt says it’s gone (and "old news"? I disagree).

Re: Why YC went to DC

#34

Post by Bjorkbat »

I'm tempted to be cynical about this, especially since me and Garry Tan really don't seem to have the same political alignment, but I'm honestly pretty glad this happened. The tech community (outside of big tech) ought to be more politically active rather than complain when senile politicians get behind a law that doesn't make sense. I want to say there are about as many software developers in the US as there are farmers, and yet the latter has enormous political power, while we have virtually none. I mean, imagine if we could get the federal government to subsidize us in the same way it subsidizes corn farmers.

Don't get me wrong, I kind of fear what laws and legislation a tech voting bloc would pass, but I'm also optimistic that we could push forward some genuinely progressive legislation as well. Maybe we could pass laws that encourage more housing development. Perhaps some bureaucratic reforms similar to the ones that occurred in Estonia, the kind that result in major cost reductions without any loss in quality of service. Universal healthcare? Those slightly strange policy ideas we like to talk about that are clearly progressive, even "socialist", but are also palatable to libertarians?

Mixed feelings about lobby for open source AI, but nonetheless, glad it happened. Hope to see more of it.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#35

Post by candiddevmike »

siliconc0w wrote: post #9

If you need more things to fix: * Software R&D Amortization - taxes on make-believe profits * Patent law - protect small businesses from patent trolls * Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions. * Healthcare insurance - employees of SMBs automatically get access to medicar…

> * Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions.

I don't see how this will end well. I appreciate the reasoning behind it, but this is not a good solution.

I'd prefer to see more "startup friendly" compliance frameworks that don't require tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and make both the startup and their customers satisfied with the outcome. Something like a SOC2-lite that isn't so onerous but still provides a decent snapshot of their current situation from a third party's perspective.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#36

Post by SR2Z »

candiddevmike wrote: post #35
siliconc0w wrote: post #9

If you need more things to fix: * Software R&D Amortization - taxes on make-believe profits * Patent law - protect small businesses from patent trolls * Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions. * Healthcare insurance - employees of SMBs automatically get access to medicar…

> * Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions. I don't see how this will end well. I appreciate the reasoning behind it, but this is not a good solution. I'd prefer to see more "startup friendly" compliance frameworks that don't require tens to hundreds of thousands of doll…

Yeah, the only thing worse than the current status quo would be giving some SV startups a privileged position as gatekeepers for regulatory compliance (the Watershed strategy).

Re: Why YC went to DC

#37

Post by doron »

It's well and good to advocate for change within the industry (large and small) but realistically, all of this is missing the forest for trees, or equating symptom with the cause.

The only way out of this long term, is to take money out of politics, repeal citizens united, revolving doors and other methods of lining politicians' pockets.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#38

Post by LeafItAlone »

redserk wrote: post #30
ralegh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said, also applies to many human dynamics - friendships, relationships, work relationships, etc. Ceding power is a ratchet and you either put your foot down to start with or it grinds away.

Hard disagree. Healthy relationships include negotiating when potential boundaries are in question, or if things change that require re-aligning boundaries. It's reasonable to give more to the other party from time-to-time, and reasonable to discuss with the other party if it becomes a point where it feels unfair. Instead we (Americans) take an unnecessarily adversarial stance against what our government could do, en…

> Healthy relationships

In reality, the vast majority of relationships aren’t actually healthy in this way. Most people get that only from their parent and family, if that. So parent’s advice is important.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#39

Post by cj »

SR2Z wrote: post #36
candiddevmike wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions. I don't see how this will end well. I appreciate the reasoning behind it, but this is not a good solution. I'd prefer to see more "startup friendly" compliance frameworks that don't require tens to hundreds of thousands of doll…

Yeah, the only thing worse than the current status quo would be giving some SV startups a privileged position as gatekeepers for regulatory compliance (the Watershed strategy).

This is (kind of) starting to happen. See Vanta ($100m+ funding), Secureframe ($50m+ funding), etc.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#40

Post by candiddevmike »

mrb wrote: post #14

"This year, we’ll fund more than 500 companies out of 50,000 applications, and almost all of them are related to AI in some way." So, what this means: that in 2024, if you want to get VC capital, your startup must be related to AI.

It's like VR in 2018. I'd love to see a Silicon Valley season for the current tech environment.
Post reply on HN