upvote
> ... it seems to me they want to be taken over by the government?

They're looking for regulatory capture. They've spent ${bignum} on AI and are possibly looking to have the government say "You can't deploy an AI model unless you've spent ${bignum} on it and done all these steps to make sure that nothing goes bad."

At that point, only the existing AI companies that have spent that money can continue forward until someone else spends ${bignum} on it too.

Another aspect of it is if there are regulations established, it may be used to reduce liability ("we followed all the steps proscribed in section whatever, the company is absolved of liability for its actions and that falls on the user instead.")

reply
> I'm probably losing it, but just based on OpenAI's behavior and public communications, it seems to me they want to be taken over by the government?

Well, as people say over and over again, they've got no moat. The actual LLM models are destined to be commoditized over time, and the real money is in the hardware to run them on. The endgame winners are going to be Nvidia and AMD, not Anthropic or OpenAI.

So what's the typical playbook for large firms seeking to insulate themselves against market compensation? Push for regulation. If there are no natural barriers to entry, create artificial ones. And how do you get regulation passed? Present yourself as the target of the regulation, rather than its beneficiary, and start publicly doing things that make others think you need to be reined in.

These stunts, especially from OpenAI, aren't just trying to hype up the power of their own product, they're trying to hype up the perceived threat of the entire category, so they can provoke political intervention that they can comply with, but few others can.

reply
That is not actually a typical playbook. Normal businesses do not want to be regulated, and will fight it tooth and nail. So regulation happens when bad things happen, the public wants change, and the businesses can't fight it or set favorable terms. (At most they can minimize the badness of the terms). Regulatory capture happens much later, and slowly. It's not where you start at.
reply
and Google. Don't forget them and TPUs...
reply
> so they can provoke political intervention that they can comply with, but few others can.

See Meta et al complaining about Section 230 of the DMCA. Meta would be entirely able to moderate in an environment where mass scale moderation/censorship would be required to prevent a host's liability for UGC. Almost no one else would be able to do so.

That means no upstart could possible come along to dethrone Meta as they did with MySpace. It would also be impractical to run a FOSS social network (or forums). Meta could literally just have bots sign up on a FOSS social network until its DAU count ran over the statutory minimums to be subject to UGC liability.

Regulatory capture is a de facto ban on competition in a market.

reply
Its pretty clear OAI and Ant live in fantasy land - the US govt doesnt care if they go bust. There's plenty of other tech firms that generate immense cash flows from operations who they can be sold to - no problem. And the shareholders and employees have no right to be pissed - they invested/ accepted SBC knowing there is immense risk.

The private market price is irrelevant - supply and demand determines what they will be sold for in liquidation.

Quite frankly Im bored of this drama. Get it over with already - go IPO, show your financials, find a path to being a healthy going concern or die! Simple! Nobody has a divine right to exist.

reply
> Nobody has a divine right to exist. No company*
reply
US govt will never buy at the (private aka fake) market price - good luck explaining that away to the public. It'll be political suicide.

If the US govt takes over, existing employees and shareholders will get screwed.

reply