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

591–600 of 672 posts

Re: US AI Action Plan

#591

Post by bigyabai »

artninja1988 wrote: post #340
bigyabai wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good to see what? "Encourage" means nothing, every example listed in the document is more exploitative than supportive. Today, Google and Apple both already sell AI products that technically fall under this definition, and did without government "encouragement" in the mix. There isn't a single actionable thing mentioned that would promote further development of such models.

It's certainly more encouraging than the tone from a few months/ years ago, when there was talk of outright banning open source/ weigh foundational weight models

You literally cannot ban weights. You can try, but you can't. Anyone threatening to do so wasn't doing it credibly.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#592

Post by jakelazaroff »

whodidntante wrote: post #574
jakelazaroff wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty fantastic claim. Can you provide some links to the body of independent research that backs it up?

There is quite a lot of easy to find information on the web that shows that the US spends twice as much per capita than our European peers and we have worse outcomes, not just on average, but worse outcomes comparing similar economic demographics, including wealthy Americans. We spend $5T a year on health care, or a comparative waste of over $2.5T a year. Was just listening to this on NPR this morning: https://www.np…

Sorry, let me clarify: the fantastic claim is "AI is already better at diagnosis than physicians in most cases."

Re: US AI Action Plan

#593

Post by palmfacehn »

roenxi wrote: post #500
klabb3 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any ideology that accepts taxation - practically all of them - believes [the idea that certain people is just above others and they deserve more for free]. Only if you anchor the baseline of "deserve" to private property rights and open markets. It's a fine foundation for civilization, but it's still "just like your opinion man". You could have different viewpoints of deserving, such as strongest-wins: "If I can st…

>> Any ideology that accepts taxation - practically all of them - believes [the idea that certain people is just above others and they deserve more for free]. > Only if you anchor the baseline of "deserve" to private property rights and open markets. Say someone has an ideology where they believe 70 year olds shouldn't have to work and need to be provided for by the community. What aspect of that would be anchored to…

There's nothing in the pure argument for private property which contradicts a moral obligation to support the downtrodden. The purists would only insist that the support be offered voluntarily. I'm somewhat disappointed to see the assumption to the contrary repeatedly made on this site.

Advocacy for private property doesn't start from a motive of greed. Rather, proponents regard it as the best way to responsibly manage scarce resources and create abundance. After all, there is no charity without abundance.

Private property and open markets create the incentives for value creation and increased productivity. While central planning may be able to achieve these ends theoretically, in practice we find that the incentives of the bureaucrats and insiders often limit productive opportunities. The "Economic Calculation Problem" is another huge barrier for successful state management.

So while the sales pitch for socialized management of resources often involves "equality of outcome", it often results in the lowering of productivity generally. Worse yet, centralized bureaucratic control of scarce resources incentivizes favors to large industrial concerns, politically connected classes and elites.

Obviously there will be those who disagree with this analysis. I only object to the misstating of intent.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#594

Post by golem14 »

torginus wrote: post #370
timoth3y wrote: post #68

> Update Federal procurement guidelines to ensure that the government only contracts with frontier large language model (LLM) developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias If foundation model companies want their government contracts renewed, they are going to have to make sure their AI output aligns with this administration's version of "truth".

I heard the phrase: If you want the system to be fair, you have to build the system with the assumption your enemies will be running it. Let's see how that shakes out in this particular case.

Person of Interest was pretty prescient …

Re: US AI Action Plan

#595

Post by jakelazaroff »

taneq wrote: post #329
jakelazaroff wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we've see what happens when you try to "correct" that alignment: you get wildly bigoted output. After Grok called for another Holocaust, Elon Musk said that it's "surprisingly hard to avoid both woke libtard cuck and mechahitler" [1]. The Occam's Razor explanation is that there's just not that much ideological space between an "anti-woke" model and a literal Nazi! [1] https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1944132…

There’s a simpler explanation, to do with the veracity of that tweet.

True, the simplest explanation is that Elon Musk is actually trying to create MechaHitler :)

Re: US AI Action Plan

#596

Post by margalabargala »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #562
margalabargala wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has long since exhausted it's "easy" oil/gas reserves. Yes, there's tons more down there, but it's increasingly hard to get to. Lots of extraction methods only make sense when the price for oil is above some amount. If the rest of the world standardizes on solar+battery, demand for oil goes down, and so will the price. Which in turn makes US-produced oil not cost effective to extract, and domestic energy produ…

There are a great many assumptions in this argument, and I'm not sure they stand up well to examination. 1) "We're out of easily extractable oil" maybe, but I've heard it before and technology does have a way of marching forward. 2) "Rest of world's oil demand will drop" is possible but certainly not happening today and far from certain. 3) "Then Oil prices will plummet in the US Domestic market" is far from a sure t…

> 1) "We're out of easily extractable oil" maybe, but I've heard it before and technology does have a way of marching forward.

You've heard it before because it's been true for a long time. Technology marches forwards, yes, but technology is expensive, and like I said, a lot of domestic production has fairly high price levels below which they will not operate.

> 2) "Rest of world's oil demand will drop" is possible but certainly not happening today and far from certain.

That's totally fair.

> 3) "Then Oil prices will plummet in the US Domestic market" is far from a sure thing even if 2) comes to pass. How do the other producers - who don't have large domestic markets! - react? What happens to global petrochemical demand? And what sort of Industrial policy could shield our markets, even if this happens globally?

Assuming (2) does happen, then I think this follows naturally. The cost to produce a barrel of oil varies wildly by country. If global demand drops, then the cheapest producers eat the market that they currently cannot fully supply.

Could industrial policy shield this? Sure, but at great cost to the US; that would have the side effect of pushing down energy prices for the rest of the world even more, making it even harder for us to keep up.

Uranium absolutely could save us, but I think we're a couple decades out from the political will being there to really get a lot of nuclear online.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#597

Post by jakelazaroff »

saubeidl wrote: post #369
zmgsabst wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, eg, liberal capitalist Americans oppose Marxism — and the adoption of neo-Marxist ideas has collapsed movie and game sales because their ideology is widely unpopular. That’s a trope by Marxists to attempt to normalize alt-left ideology by accusing anyone who objects of being Nazis; a trope that’s become tired in the US and minimizes the true radical nature of the Nazi regime.

Which movies and games call for shared ownership of the means of production? I have a suspicion you don't really know what Marxism is about, but like using it because it sounds scary to you.

Notice the motte and bailey here: using the uncontroversial "liberal capitalist Americans oppose Marxism" claim to advance the idea that whatever social views they call "neo-Marxism" are unpopular.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#598

Post by atoav »

potato3732842 wrote: post #559
lupusreal wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste is a complete non-issue. It's trivial to just let it sit around in a corner of the power plant's property for a century or two until somebody nuts up and dumps it down a bore shaft or into the ocean where it belongs. There's no technical or economic problem here. The problem is completely one of PR, with ignoramuses thinking it's a big deal being the entire problem.

And just to be clear, it would be "a bore shaft", not "many bore shafts". The amount of nuclear waste generated per person per lifetime is so small you could pick it up and carry it. So a single well positioned mine with good geology could literally store all of it the US could generate for centuries.

Well price it in then. Storage cost per anum times the time it is needed + the bureaucratic cost to ensure it is there till the end of its lifetime.

I know that Germany is seeking a nuclear waste storage site (unsucessfully) for two decades now. So simple.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#599

Post by Karawebnetwork »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #590
Karawebnetwork wrote: post #495

Important follow-up page to the US AI Action Page: "PREVENTING WOKE AI IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/prev... > In the AI context, DEI includes the suppression or distortion of factual information about race or sex; manipulation of racial or sexual representation in model outputs; incorporation of concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias,…

It's worth mentioning because the AI developers have been using alignment training to make AI's see the world through the lens of intersectionality. That ranges from censoring what those philosophies would censor to simply presenting answers like they would. Some models actually got dumber as they prioritized indoctrination as "safety" training. It appears that many employees in the companies think that way, too. Mos…

Unconscious bias is not about pushing a political agenda it is about recognising how hidden assumptions can distort outcomes in every field, from technology to medicine. Ignoring these biases does not make systems more neutral, but often less accurate and less effective.

Re: US AI Action Plan

#600

Post by saubeidl »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #597
saubeidl wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which movies and games call for shared ownership of the means of production? I have a suspicion you don't really know what Marxism is about, but like using it because it sounds scary to you.

Notice the motte and bailey here: using the uncontroversial "liberal capitalist Americans oppose Marxism" claim to advance the idea that whatever social views they call "neo-Marxism" are unpopular.

...and to further smear Marxism by associating it with whatever is unpopular, even if it's unrelated to the ideology.
Post reply on HN