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

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#61

Post by pu_pe »

woadwarrior01 wrote: post #37
pu_pe wrote: post #12

> Overall my view is that AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws). Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plu…

I think his point is hand wavy at best. It presupposes infinite scaling and ignores all the algorithmic efficiency wins that are being discovered. Ironically, many of which are being discovered with autoresearch style workflows, using the very LLMs that his company builds. The #1 post on HN right now[1] is full of people jubilating about how they can run Qwen 3.8 27B on their > 5 year old GPUs. If that isn't democrat…

Which percentage of people have GPUs capable of running Qwen3.8 27B? I am one of those, and for my job I am still resorting to hyperscalers because tasks are completed faster and more accurately that way. Even if we assume that models will no longer improve and we reach a point where everyone can run Fable in their laptop, surely running 1000x Fable agents would give you an advantage.

I think access to compute will matter just as much, if not more, as access to models.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#62

Post by RandomLensman »

spwa4 wrote: post #55
amarcheschi wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rapture but for tech people

[flagged]

>The watermarking algorithm itself has a VERY specific property that should have set off everyone's alarm bells: it is NOT the case that you can "check text for AI watermark". What it technically mandates is that if you provide access to a model, those people should be able to check if text is generated by that model. Not by any other model. It is NOT a general "is this AI?"

Where do I find that in the Act (or code of practice etc.)? IANAL, but Article 50 reads different to me but if there is a comment or guide how to read it - also fair enough.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#63

Post by margorczynski »

ReptileMan wrote: post #27
glimshe wrote: post #13

One thing Dario said is important reflecting on (but from another angle): where's the big deliverable from AI? If AI makes us 10x more productive, the 3 years since its popularization were enough for a product that would have taken 30 years to build without AI, for instance. I'm an AI advocate but that question makes me feel that AI is simply "very useful" rather than being a historical game changer for humanity.

Right now we are in the golden age where we do the same and take time off. Employers have not yet fully caught up with the workforce. I can't think of people that are not putting less hours this year for the same salaries.

The questions is what happens when they catch up. They'll cut like 50%+ of the workforce? What happens then to the demand that makes their companies work?

Or an example of MS - their main cost like most software companies are people, especially software devs, which are to be replaced by AI so on the surface they would greatly benefit from it. But their products are centered around helping out people do stuff on the computer. Why would you need that when the AI will do it better and faster directly operating on the data or using e.g. Python?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#64

Post by anon-3988 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #60
kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. I think typical bubble behavior the leaders have set up the whole promise to fail. Everyone is expecting some faux super intelligence to come and find a cancer solution everyone else missed. However, it is just as likely that vanilla current LLM's will create enough of a productivity boost for back office automations in research heavy hospitals to create the space…

I mean they did solve the protein folding problem did they? NOt too far fetch to think it can automate cancer research or problem finding in some way.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#65

Post by RandomLensman »

spwa4 wrote: post #57
pas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably the question is whether it's economically feasible to self-host something similar. Are you self-hosting Google or Bing? No, but we have quite a huge ecosystem of full-text search tools with PageRank, with options to scale to almost Google scale (if you have the money). After all LLM training starts with the same crawl mechanism. As long as barriers to entry is not too high (ie. it makes sense to take the ris…

You're missing the point, what will happen is this: 1) in things like tax law, registering with city hall, dealings with the DMV, your phone subscription, insurance contract, ... you will find that one of the new fine prints in the contract will be that you're not allowed to use AI to communicate with them. 2) because of how SynthID works (you need the SynthID keys to verify, which are secret. So the only way to find…

1) Would that fine print be binding?

2) What actual law/regulation would that currently be that would be used for such an outright refusal?

3) Would that comply with current regulation?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#66

Post by podgorniy »

pu_pe wrote: post #12

> Overall my view is that AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws). Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plu…

Swap that point about AI with "electricity". Everything runs on electricity it's "a technology that tends to concentrate power" (no pun intended). The electricity providers must be too powerful... But somehow electricity providers aren't that powerful. Unless there is no competition in sight...

The point "AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power" is not that correct. They need this statement to be true, otherwise no way to justify the trillion evaluations.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#67

Post by mindwok »

kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

I think it's more reasonable than it sounds on the surface. People's jobs, the bubble, etc are societal level problems and well beyond what Anthropic could even hope to influence on their own.

Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, not a societal level coordination problem. And one AI has already proved to help with breakthroughs (alphafold). IMO it makes sense for them to shoot for something like that as proof of AI's beneficial sides.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#68

Post by ReptileMan »

margorczynski wrote: post #63
ReptileMan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now we are in the golden age where we do the same and take time off. Employers have not yet fully caught up with the workforce. I can't think of people that are not putting less hours this year for the same salaries.

The questions is what happens when they catch up. They'll cut like 50%+ of the workforce? What happens then to the demand that makes their companies work? Or an example of MS - their main cost like most software companies are people, especially software devs, which are to be replaced by AI so on the surface they would greatly benefit from it. But their products are centered around helping out people do stuff on the c…

Who knows. What I tell is that the AI productivity boom is here. Just for a change right now it is not shown on businesses balance sheets, because it is captured by the workforce in non monetary ways.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#69

Post by Pavilion2095 »

woadwarrior01 wrote: post #42
onion2k wrote: post #33

When people talk about Qwen 3.8 being on a par with Fable, they're really talking about Qwen 3.8 Max aka Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B. That's a 2.4 trillion parameter Mixture of Experts model with 95B active parameters. You need about 400GB of RAM to run it. No one is running that locally. The distillations of Qwen 3.8 down to a 27B model are good, but they're not on a par with frontier models. When Dario talks about open weigh…

> The distillations of Qwen 3.8 down to a 27B model are good, but they're not on a par with frontier models. Does it have to be? There are plenty of coding tasks, where it's good enough.

> coding tasks

Exactly. There are common coding tasks that these models can adequately do. They are absolute trash for anything that isn't coding. And even with coding, they are so, so far behind frontier models.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#70

Post by charcircuit »

pu_pe wrote: post #12

> Overall my view is that AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws). Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plu…

Physical constraints like time and compute make it so that AI does not concentrate power due to scaling laws.
Post reply on HN