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

U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#821

Post by [deleted] »

mediaman wrote: post #628
foota wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? This is the opposite of regulatory capture. Neither anthropic nor openai are getting to choose what happens with their models.

Regulatory capture doesn't necessarily mean the regulated get to decide what the regulators do in precise steps. It can simply mean they support and exist within a regulatory regime that greatly benefits the regulated. In fact, you generally don't want them directly telling the regulators what to do. Instead, the regulators make complex, costly rules that only large establishment players can follow. The regulators lo…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#822

Post by andsoitis »

freakynit wrote: post #820
andsoitis wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This will make it hard/impossible for new vendors to come into the market and only established companies will get to play, and charge, for LLMs. I don't understand how you leap from "US govt. decides who gets to use GPT-5" to "limit new vendors from competing with OpenAI". Can you walk me through the logic?

These frontier models are now good enough that they can assist heavily with new optimizations for future models, including, code them. Restricting their usage to a few companies takes away that advantage away from other companies, thereby, limiting new vendors from competing with OpenAI.

> Restricting their usage to a few companies takes away that advantage away from other companies, thereby, limiting new vendors from competing with OpenAI.

wait, are you saying a competitor needs access to an OpenAI model in order to build a competing model?

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#823

Post by ericmay »

oytis wrote: post #693
jmward01 wrote: post #604

This is regulatory capture in action. This will make it hard/impossible for new vendors to come into the market and only established companies will get to play, and charge, for LLMs. What does this mean for open source? Will it become illegal to download weights? What about train your own? Are we heading to a world where GPU use is regulated to ensure that illegal LLMs aren't being processed on your machine? More bro…

So far it's only US doing this. I don't think it's in anyone else's interest to limit development of open source models or chips. Nvidia has secured a leading position in GPU market by being the best overall, but if US continues to mess up with the export, that changes the calculation and surely we'll see the alternatives

Any country that developed sufficiently advanced models will pursue the same path. The EU as a regulatory body would pursue the same path, as will/is China.

It’s rather straightforward to think through. If China (they’re practically the only competitor) built a sufficiently advanced AI system would they allow it to propagate on the free market? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that they are behind, even if it’s just a little bit, so the best strategy they have is to try and compete with “good enough” models with lower/subsidized cost - but that is a losing strategy because AI is and always has been a winner-take-all strategy.

Likewise if, idk, France someone built an AI system that was valuable do you think they’d just hand it over for sworn enemy Donald J. Trump to utilized? Of course not.

The American strategy in the context of the current geopolitical landscape is the only valid one and the obvious one. If you find yourself criticizing the American strategy it’s because you aren’t in the arena where you would, inevitably, make the same decision to restrict access.

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#825

Post by itemize123 »

jmward01 wrote: post #604

This is regulatory capture in action. This will make it hard/impossible for new vendors to come into the market and only established companies will get to play, and charge, for LLMs. What does this mean for open source? Will it become illegal to download weights? What about train your own? Are we heading to a world where GPU use is regulated to ensure that illegal LLMs aren't being processed on your machine? More bro…

literally the opposite of regulatory capture - it spells trouble for specifically openai and anthropic mostly

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#827

Post by itemize123 »

plemer wrote: post #709
microgpt wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this regulatory capture? Any new LLM company can just exist outside of the US and export to everyone.

You’re saying it’s not regulatory capture because it’s not enforced globally?

it's not regulatory capture, because they are not regulating what customers can use - it's limiting what some companies can serve. it's way less impactful to the market as a whole.

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#828

Post by gwerbin »

itemize123 wrote: post #825
jmward01 wrote: post #604

This is regulatory capture in action. This will make it hard/impossible for new vendors to come into the market and only established companies will get to play, and charge, for LLMs. What does this mean for open source? Will it become illegal to download weights? What about train your own? Are we heading to a world where GPU use is regulated to ensure that illegal LLMs aren't being processed on your machine? More bro…

literally the opposite of regulatory capture - it spells trouble for specifically openai and anthropic mostly

That's often how regulatory capture works. It seems bad for the incumbents, but it's worse for any future competitor. As long as the cost of complying with the regulation is less than your expected loss from competition entering the market, then it's net positive for the incumbent.

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#829

Post by m4x »

andsoitis wrote: post #822
freakynit wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These frontier models are now good enough that they can assist heavily with new optimizations for future models, including, code them. Restricting their usage to a few companies takes away that advantage away from other companies, thereby, limiting new vendors from competing with OpenAI.

> Restricting their usage to a few companies takes away that advantage away from other companies, thereby, limiting new vendors from competing with OpenAI. wait, are you saying a competitor needs access to an OpenAI model in order to build a competing model?

I agree with your point, but to play devils advocate: doesn't a competitor arguably need access to these beyond-frontier models to even become an effective competitor to OpenAI and Anthropic?

Re: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6

#830

Post by gwerbin »

thayne wrote: post #760
nonethewiser wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is regulatory capture in action. Isnt this all export control based? If so its not regulatory capture for a few reasons. If not disregard this. 1) new entrants wont get export controlled because they arent leading edge 2) a new company could just implement KYC. It could even be a competitive advantage (Anthropic wont or cant)

> Only companies approved by the government will get access. There is no process for individual users to get access to the new model. That sounds like more than just export control. This means that big company A that the president has a business interest in could get access to the most powerful AIs, while a startup competing with it doesn't.

It's worth keeping in mind the broader context here politically. The president and his cabinet are generally pursuing policies of a strong unitary executive branch that centralizes "technocratic" functions under the control of politicians and political appointees. The majority in Congress doesn't appear to mind and seems to be actively sitting back from legislating on topics like this. The overall effect is that of creating a system in which the rules are deliberately uncertain and the only reliable way to get approval is by aligning yourself or your organization politically. It's a powerful technique for ensuring political compliance in the corporate world.
Post reply on HN