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

US AI Action Plan

ai.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 672 posts

Re: US AI Action Plan

#451

Post by rs186 »

AlanYx wrote: post #10

The most important thing here IMHO is the strong stance taken towards open source and open weight AI models. This stance puts the US government at odds with some other regulatory initiatives like the EU AI Act (which doesn't outlaw open weight models and does have some exemptions below 10²⁵ FLOPS, but still places a fairly daunting regulatory burden on decentralized open projects).

If you go through the "Recommended Policy Actions" section in the document, you'll realize it's mostly just empty talk.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#452

Post by sim7c00 »

dismalpedigree wrote: post #222
davidmurdoch wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much land mass would need to be covered by solar panels to power this future AI infrastructure. Yes, I'm implying that solar would be impractical, but I'm also genuinely curious.

3,000-4,000 acres per GW of production capacity in the US Southwest. According to AI :) Considering how little use there is for most of that land anyways, it seems like a good option to me. Also AI training seems like the perfect fit for solar. Run it when the sun is shining. Inference is significantly less power hungry, so it can run base load 24/7.

the sun is always shining.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#453

Post by somenameforme »

jonplackett wrote: post #396
LorenDB wrote: post #60

> Encourage Open-Source and Open-Weight AI It's good to see this, especially since they acknowledge that open weights is not equal to open source.

How can this work with their main goal of assuring American superiority? If it’s open weights anyone else can use it too.

The idea is to dominate AI in the same way that China dominates manufacturing. Even if things are open source that creates a major dependency, especially when the secret sauce is the training content - which is irreversibly hashed away into the weights.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#454

Post by sim7c00 »

newsclues wrote: post #432
mlsu wrote: post #46

In the energy section, they talk about using nuclear fusion to power AI... but not solar. What a joke.

The joke is my hometown that put acres of solar on prime farmland. Solar is great for rooftops of houses, it’s not really great to run a DC 24/7 without batteries.

it needs to be better connected over larger distances i guess. Some 'sunny' countries around the equator are working on it. laying gridlines to other less sunny places and trying to offer solar to reduce carbon taxes or whatever.

i know Saudi, Morocco and China are all massively dumping panels into their deserts, likely more places too. these are great places to put them as it has less impact on environment (less wildlife etc.) and it's pretty much always sunny during the daytime, so it's high efficient per m/2 comparted to colder more cloudy places.

Morocco already is connected for energy providing to Europe via Spain afaik, though i think that is currently not used yet, so they are in a good position to leverage that as power demands surge across EU datacenters trying to compete in AI :'D (absolutely no clue if they will actually go that route but it seems logical!)

Re: US AI Action Plan

#455

Post by somenameforme »

HPsquared wrote: post #429
jonplackett wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can this work with their main goal of assuring American superiority? If it’s open weights anyone else can use it too.

They see people using DeepSeek open weights and are like "huh, that could encode the model creators' values in everything they do".

I doubt this has anything to do with 'values' one way or the other. It's just about trying to create dependencies, which can then be exploited by threatening their removal or restriction.

It's also doomed to failure because of how transparent this is, and how abused previous dependencies (like the USD) have been. Every major country will likely slowly move to restrict other major powers' AI systems while implicitly mandating their own.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#456

Post by somenameforme »

Frieren wrote: post #390
HSO wrote: post #334

after the pandemic, i see the pattern everywhere. newsflash: it doesnt matter what you "plan". you wont do it. because you cant. it´s called state incapacity. you´re institutionally incapable. prediction: nothing will follow from this except the low effort stuff (i.e. nothing but speeches and expenses)

> prediction: nothing will follow from this except the low effort stuff (i.e. nothing but speeches and expenses) Hundred million contracts with zero results. Conservative ideology is based on the idea that certain people is just above others and they deserve more for free meanwhile working class health expenses are a luxury and need to be cut down.

Undeserved and bloated government contracts are essentially a cornerstone of all big government (and one of the major arguments against it), it has nothing to do with any ideology.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#457

Post by jasonjayr »

HPsquared wrote: post #445
NewJazz wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build subsurface wells and responsible brine dispersion infrastructure then come back and tell me we can desalinate as much as we need to.

If you put the brine back into the sea, and later put the waste water back into the same sea, doesn't it balance out? Also, the sea is pretty big.

Perhaps, but locally, the higher brine concentration will cause issues.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#458

Post by 542354234235 »

Kon5ole wrote: post #415
davidmurdoch wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much land mass would need to be covered by solar panels to power this future AI infrastructure. Yes, I'm implying that solar would be impractical, but I'm also genuinely curious.

Your implication is misguided, solar is in fact the most practical way to add more electricity for most countries. The US generated an additional 64Twh of solar in 2024 compared to 2023. To get the same amount from nuclear you would need to build 5 large reactors in one year. As for land mass, we can re-use already spent land mass, like rooftops, parking lots, grazing farmland and such. Solar can also be placed on la…

Since America is so in love with car infrastructure, just turning open parking lots into covered lots would be more than enough.

Just converting all Walmart parking to covered solar would meet almost half of all US electrical demand.

4,070,000,000,000 kWh US electric use in 2022

Using 330W panels it would require 8,447,488 panels (4,070,000,000,000 kWh / (330W * 4 hours/day * 365 days/year)) which is 164,726,016 sq ft at 19.5 sq ft per panel.

Walmart has 4,612 stores in the US, averaging 1,000 parking spaces per store, and 180 sq ft per parking space (does not include driving lanes, end caps, etc.) giving us 830,160,000 sq ft.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#459

Post by vharuck »

alganet wrote: post #442
jonplackett wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can this work with their main goal of assuring American superiority? If it’s open weights anyone else can use it too.

It doesn't say anything about open training corpus of data. The USA supposedly have the most data in the world. Companies cannot (in theory) train on integrated sets of information. USA and China to some extent, can train on large amounts of information that is not public. USA in particular has been known for keeping a vast repository of metadata (data about data) about all sorts of things. This data is very refined…

So DOGE might not be consolidating and linking data just for ICE, but for providing to companies as a training corpus? In normal times, I'd laugh that off as a paranoiac fever dream.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#460

Post by hopelite »

LorenDB wrote: post #60

> Encourage Open-Source and Open-Weight AI It's good to see this, especially since they acknowledge that open weights is not equal to open source.

It’s primarily motivated by control; similar to how all narcissistic, abusive, controlling, murderous, “dominating” (as the document itself proclaims) people and systems are. That is not motivated by magnanimity and genuine shared interest or focus on precision and accuracy.

The controllers of the whole system want open weights and source to make sure models aren’t going to expose the population to unapproved ideas and allow the spread of unapproved thoughts or allow making unapproved connections or ask unapproved questions without them being suitably countered to keep everyone in line with the system.

Post reply on HN