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

White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#41

Post by segmondy »

aurareturn wrote: post #12

* Maybe Anthropic's call for regulation has backfired. Now it's going to be overregulation. They might regret it now. * This might be regulatory capture for OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic. Any new entrant will have a harder time getting approval. * This is going to be terrible for the industry in general because this administration will not hesitate to demand bribes and force their propaganda into the models. * This m…

Nah, Anthropic would love this. They definitely don't want you using KimiK2.6, DeepSeekV4Pro, GLM5.1, MiniMax2.7, MimoV2.5-Pro, Qwen3.5-397B, Step3.5Flash, because, truth be told. You can survive fine without Claude.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#43

Post by dyauspitr »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #30
JLO64 wrote: post #13

A worst case scenario I feel is that the government could restrict inference providers within the US to run only approved/American LLMs, which would be a huge deal since the only recent American OSS model is Gemma. I could see OpenAI/Anthropic/Google lobbying for that though…

They know very well that China is going to keep releasing world class models at 1/20th the price and 5-300x smaller in size. They also know they screwed up by going full technofacism and there's no way back because of the trillions invested in oligarchs and it endangers the entire economy.

China can’t keep doing that. This is essentially a capture the market ploy that is government back from them at this point at current DeepSeek prices they would have to make a massive loss.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#44

Post by idle_zealot »

aurareturn wrote: post #25
changoplatanero wrote: post #23

I have many questions. How would A/B testing work in the scenario where models need to be approved by the government before release? All the big providers commonly a/b test their unreleased models on production traffic. Would these need to be preapproved? Many models get tested on the public for every one that is officially "released". Will the government have the bandwidth to examine each of these? Does changing the…

You just perfectly highlighted why over-regulation in tech is troublesome. This is why I've always been against European tech regulations which gave us the cookie prompt. Politicians shouldn't be product designers. Edit: I'll take the downvotes. Every time I say this, I get downvoted. Weirdly, even EU politicians are beginning to see that they've over regulated their tech industry so much that it can't compete but HN…

The cookie prompt is a perfect example of under regulation. The law you're citing as over-regulation requires companies to get consent before tracking you. Companies across the board settled on "annoy users into consenting" as their compliance strategy. You want to revert to implied consent? Fuck that, layer on "also you can't pester users into agreeing to being tracked." Too vague? That's the point; anything else and you incentivize dancing on the line of exactly how close to non-compliance you can get away with. Politicians broadly shouldn't be product designers, but establishing broad no-go zones around anti-consumer behavior is foundational to modern society. Without that you get cartoon ads marketing menthol cigarettes to kids and commercials for casino apps for betting on drone strikes.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#46

Post by ceejayoz »

idle_zealot wrote: post #44
aurareturn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just perfectly highlighted why over-regulation in tech is troublesome. This is why I've always been against European tech regulations which gave us the cookie prompt. Politicians shouldn't be product designers. Edit: I'll take the downvotes. Every time I say this, I get downvoted. Weirdly, even EU politicians are beginning to see that they've over regulated their tech industry so much that it can't compete but HN…

The cookie prompt is a perfect example of under regulation. The law you're citing as over-regulation requires companies to get consent before tracking you. Companies across the board settled on "annoy users into consenting" as their compliance strategy. You want to revert to implied consent? Fuck that, layer on "also you can't pester users into agreeing to being tracked." Too vague? That's the point; anything else an…

Yup. It was pure malicious compliance by the tracking industry with the hopes of killing the regulation.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#47

Post by dylan604 »

dgellow wrote: post #15
malshe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also answer “correctly” who won the 2020 presidential election

And Jan 6 revisionism, ie not mentioning that the sitting president attempted a coup to steal an election

Or who was identified in the Epstein files

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#48

Post by aurareturn »

idle_zealot wrote: post #44
aurareturn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just perfectly highlighted why over-regulation in tech is troublesome. This is why I've always been against European tech regulations which gave us the cookie prompt. Politicians shouldn't be product designers. Edit: I'll take the downvotes. Every time I say this, I get downvoted. Weirdly, even EU politicians are beginning to see that they've over regulated their tech industry so much that it can't compete but HN…

The cookie prompt is a perfect example of under regulation. The law you're citing as over-regulation requires companies to get consent before tracking you. Companies across the board settled on "annoy users into consenting" as their compliance strategy. You want to revert to implied consent? Fuck that, layer on "also you can't pester users into agreeing to being tracked." Too vague? That's the point; anything else an…

This is over regulation because regulation always have unintended consequences. The unintended consequence is the cookie prompt.

And before someone comes out saying that only "bad" websites want to track you, the official European Union website has a cookie prompt. https://commission.europa.eu/index_en

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#49

Post by 2ndorderthought »

dyauspitr wrote: post #43
2ndorderthought wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know very well that China is going to keep releasing world class models at 1/20th the price and 5-300x smaller in size. They also know they screwed up by going full technofacism and there's no way back because of the trillions invested in oligarchs and it endangers the entire economy.

China can’t keep doing that. This is essentially a capture the market ploy that is government back from them at this point at current DeepSeek prices they would have to make a massive loss.

I think you misunderstood what China has been doing to make the progress they have. They've invested far less and have actual applications because they are the world's largest manufacturer.

In the us we have products we sell to china to automate their factories. China soon wont need those. The US goal of laying off anyone who thinks for money is really different than chinas goals of automating product manufacturing.

Deepseek costs less because it actually costs less. Chinas electrical infrastructure is so much better than the uses. Meanwhile the us has ai data centers running on effing gas. On literal gas generators. The only budget discussions for infrastructure in the us are basically for the DHS too. It's not sustainable.

Re: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released

#50

Post by dgellow »

aurareturn wrote: post #48
idle_zealot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cookie prompt is a perfect example of under regulation. The law you're citing as over-regulation requires companies to get consent before tracking you. Companies across the board settled on "annoy users into consenting" as their compliance strategy. You want to revert to implied consent? Fuck that, layer on "also you can't pester users into agreeing to being tracked." Too vague? That's the point; anything else an…

This is over regulation because regulation always have unintended consequences. The unintended consequence is the cookie prompt. And before someone comes out saying that only "bad" websites want to track you, the official European Union website has a cookie prompt. https://commission.europa.eu/index_en

It’s about consent, that has nothing to do with good or bad
Post reply on HN