upvote

points

by drob51819 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby sanderjd15 hours ago|
next
[-]
Yes, but it's good for everyone that the strategy of attempting to commoditize the cash cow of a competitor exists.
reply
upvoteby overfeed16 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> ...drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down

Anthropic et al recently proposed a supranational AI governing body designed to slow everyone down (euphemistically calling it "AI pacing"). Are the Pacer signatories losing?

reply
upvoteby skohan16 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That could be a move towards regulatory capture. Enact standards that they (and OpenAI) largely control, block access to Chinese models in the US, and effectively prevent challengers from catching up.

At the same time they slow down the arms race, so they can back off on training Capex without losing their lead.

reply
upvoteby solenoid09377 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Literally nothing in their proposal is about blocking access to Chinese models, HN has devolved so much with these conspiratorial hot takes.
reply
upvoteby thraway383714 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The governing body is only the western allies. USA + AUS + EU. Or anyone else that may sign a deeply disturbing and restrictive treaty. It's to make sure that the global majority does not make a better model or have access to the same hardware. As is currently the case with embargoes on EUV machines going to China, etc.

Models are not a moat, and I think OpenAI/Anthropic know this. They know that their IPO is being weakened by the open models. Neither is hardware. We are not far from other countries catching up with silicon that matches or exceeds western capabilities, and it will be cheaper.

reply
upvoteby basch19 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
No. Opening it is to commoditize and reduce the price to use. This increases participation and creates new consumers and demand. Demand creates justification for further creation.

All the participants know it’s both a race to the bottom and a competition for premium tier at the same time. It’s two different games, meta in only really playing one of them successfully.

reply
upvoteby Melatonic17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I suspect its also because Facebook has the infrastructure to do this. One thing they have done from the start is quite good infrastructure without outsourcing to any of the big cloud providers. I cant imagine demand / bandwith / compute use is increasing much for Facebook itself so they probably have the money and time to dedicate to scaling up for AI research.
reply
upvoteby germandiago9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Competition is good.
reply
upvoteby thraway383714 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Great take, just came here to say this and you said it better than I could have.

I don't trust Zuck, and I think there's a larger strategy that he has been advised on this and he's simply copy pasting a PR piece his people made.

reply