Live data from Hacker News

US AI Action Plan

ai.gov

51–60 of 672 posts

Re: US AI Action Plan

#51
post #2

And so it begins. Both the US president and the president of China have demonstrated they see AI as a competition between their respective countries. This will be an interesting ride, if nothing else.

Xi JinPing warns against "AI" overinvestment:

https://www.ft.com/content/9c19d26f-57b3-4754-ac20-eeb627e87...

I haven't heard anything like that from a Western politician. Newspapers and investment analysts warn though.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#52
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, two crabs locked in a cage as it spirals down the drain. Looks like plans to leave, for finding safe harbor elsewhere, have accelerated from the initial projection of 2030

Interesting that you mention it, because the NYT just released their ethicist commentary from today and the question was "how do I tell my rich friends to stop talking about fleeing the country": https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/magazine/rich-friends-fle...

Well I'm not rich, and I'm not your friend, it takes a bit to earn friendship and friends have an privileged place in what is conveyed to them; but I do provide unconditional goodwill towards most people in the things that I say when asked, because it costs me nothing to do so and it provides towards others betterment putting more good out into the world.

The sad fact is, if you haven't lived outside the U.S. for at least 3-6 months independently (working/not on savings), you don't have a sound reference to understand or accurately assess the reality of these types of articles because the narratives broadcast 24/7 don't align with reality; and its something most people can't believe despite it being true, my guess is solely as a result of systematized indoctrination.

That article is pretty bad in terms of subtle manipulation, gaslighting, and pushing a false narrative (propaganda). TL;DR Its trash.

The article chose that question of the many possible questions because its a straw-man and its divisive. It appeals to emotion, mischaracterizing the intent of the communications, and purposefully omitting valid reasons such conversations might occur. Neglecting realities.

The underlying purpose seems to bias towards several things. If you ask yourself who benefits from that rhetoric you get a short list.

The bias is towards Villifying the rich, keep people in the US, where they are dependent on the US currency, and dependent on the worsening disadvantaged environment; polarize, isolate, and promote disunity along social class lines; befuddling the masses towards ends which have no actionable outcomes (wasting time and resources on a political party).

The math of first-passed-the-post voting has been in for quite a long time. 2 parties exceeding 33% of the vote can lock out any third competitor. All you need is a degree of cooperation, and play-acting and one party pretending to be two can do so, by lying.

Political capture from SuperPACs and party primaries means your vote doesn't count after a certain point. Money-printing via the FED, laundered through many private companies enabled this.

Additionally, quite a lot of things are omitted; like the historic facts that countries that are locked into a trend of decreasing geopolitical power have their population suffer greatly, and some just collapse. The Chaos lowers chances of survival, and the chaos is limited to the places that country influences.

The history of Spain following and during the Spanish inquisition as an example. You make plans to leave an area when saying means there is no foreseeable predictable or sound future, and there is nothing you can do to change that outcome.

This geo-political dynamic is well known in history, often referred to or called as "seeking empire", and the downside is forced once hegemony is achieved for any significant period of time; all empires fall. Rome being a standard archetype.

The article draws a false comparison between all other countries and communist states. If you leave, your a communist - is implied.

The article conflates warnings with good intentions as obnoxious, shutting discussion down (isolation), and promoting resentment aimed at those rich friends.

It also neglects the disparity of education (quality), and experience, that often occurs as a result of having more resources to begin with. Subtly conveying through implication that you shouldn't listen to intelligent educated people because they are rich.

I could go much deeper, but I think this sufficiently makes my point.

If you fall for that trite garbage, just imagine how unprepared and what your odds are when SHTF. The hopeless dependent pays the highest price in cost as consequences of choice realize and become outcomes. Those who don't accept and communicate important knowledge isolate and blind themselves, and they get wiped out when something outside their perceptual context creates existential threats. Like a tsunami that started on the horizon, and the receding ocean along the coast a little bit before. These indicators only became major indicators after deaths occurred.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#53
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I read the PDF. The "Remove Red Tape and Onerous Regulation Recommended Policy Actions" don't cite to any specific existing regulations. It just references executive orders that vaguely demand any such regulations be eliminated. So it bears repeating: what red tape ?

Tariffs obviously /s

Re: US AI Action Plan

#54
> Many of America’s most critical sectors, such as healthcare, are especially slow to adopt due to a variety of factors, including distrust or lack of understanding of the technology, a complex regulatory landscape, and a lack of clear governance and risk mitigation standards. A coordinated Federal effort would be beneficial in establishing a dynamic, “try-first” culture for AI across American industry.

I'm sure "move fast and break things" will work out great for health care.

And there are already "clear governance and risk mitigation standards" in health care, they're just not compatible with "try first" and use unproven things.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#56
post #54

> Many of America’s most critical sectors, such as healthcare, are especially slow to adopt due to a variety of factors, including distrust or lack of understanding of the technology, a complex regulatory landscape, and a lack of clear governance and risk mitigation standards. A coordinated Federal effort would be beneficial in establishing a dynamic, “try-first” culture for AI across American industry. I'm sure "mov…

Welcome to our pitch for DenyBot.ai

Our product automates a lot of the repetitive tasks for health insurance companies and increases reliability of responses and profit margins.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that you mention it, because the NYT just released their ethicist commentary from today and the question was "how do I tell my rich friends to stop talking about fleeing the country": https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/magazine/rich-friends-fle...

Well I'm not rich, and I'm not your friend, it takes a bit to earn friendship and friends have an privileged place in what is conveyed to them; but I do provide unconditional goodwill towards most people in the things that I say when asked, because it costs me nothing to do so and it provides towards others betterment putting more good out into the world. The sad fact is, if you haven't lived outside the U.S. for at…

>If you fall for that trite garbage, just imagine how unprepared and what your odds are when SHTF.

How do you propose the average person prepares for when SHTF? Do you expect 300 million+ people to flee the country at a moments notice? This reads like satire of the person the article is about.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#59
Weird - no mention of harassing the international students that make up the majority of AI researchers or blocking solar, the only power generation that is currently deployable.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#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.

Post reply on HN