It's pretty simple.
-
@cwebber question: open weight LLMs tend to come from China. Would the US regulations reach that far? (pardon my ignorance, in Europe i can use either :P)
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.@cwebber and it resembles self-regulation, instead of government imposed regulation.
Kinda like how Boeing performs its own safety inspections and oversight instead of the government sending in inspectors.
-
@cwebber It's interesting because on the IPO thing it's a win-win. A company that wants to IPO sounds powerful and important. A company that *doesn't* want to IPO, such as OpenAI whose IPO would probably underperform expectations if it happened tomorrow, can point to the "alignment" "safety" concerns as an excuse to put the IPO off ( https://bsky.app/profile/dryad.technology/post/3mve53u5jb22i )
This demonstrates how much more powerful lies are than truth. Presumably a truth wouldn't usually prove *both* a thing and its opposite
-
Dude, nobody is growing anything in the world of AI except their egos and bank accounts.
It's not doing anything it wasn't programmed to do, and it won't. Ever.
@edsanders2 @cwebber Agreed LLMs wont do anything not told to do, but they are kind of grown.
This is not the greatest article but as I understand it they are made like: https://blog.ciaops.com/2026/04/12/llms-are-grown-not-coded-and-that-changes-everything/
This book goes into more details about how weird LLMs really are and then falls into doom but the authors are respected AI specialists and they say pretty much the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Anyone_Builds_It,_Everyone_Dies
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.@cwebber @FantasticalEconomics I still don't get how it's marketing. Personally, I would *not* want to invest in the "kill everyone" company... Aside from the "killing everyone", I wouldn't even be able to collect on my returns!
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.How many idiot CEOs wondering right now "if it can destroy the world, surely it can replace entire departments".
[No it can't because breaking stuff is easy]
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.They always want a regulatory moat, these fuckers.
As for IPO though - pure speculation here - I wonder if their finances look like absolute muck and they're not quite ready to be seen with their pants down to the extent you need to before an IPO. They could be absolute dogs on paper, and I suspect they are.
Some had it that if IPO didn't happen this year they OpenAI + Anthropic are in trouble. Which would mean they are in trouble, and may be trying to dress it up for acquisition.
-
@cwebber @FantasticalEconomics I still don't get how it's marketing. Personally, I would *not* want to invest in the "kill everyone" company... Aside from the "killing everyone", I wouldn't even be able to collect on my returns!
@mk30 @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics
It not the "kill everyone" part that is the selling point. It's the "so powerful".
-
@cwebber question: open weight LLMs tend to come from China. Would the US regulations reach that far? (pardon my ignorance, in Europe i can use either :P)
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.@cwebber Standard issue monopoly through regulatory capture. Make it impossible for competition to comply.
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.@cwebber
As the world of the Internet Search Engines went, AI companies will sell biased AI searches to the highest bidders ... something the CCP already do... -
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.@cwebber so, I tend to agree with this pov.
But the current AI safety conversation started when an ex-Anthropic researcher said he was scared, which doesn't fit the corporate astroturfing narrative.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-researcher-quits-over-out-of-control-ai-fears-707b7628
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.@cwebber Also by a happy coincidence they had this epiphany shortly before an expected rise in interest rates.
-
@cwebber so, I tend to agree with this pov.
But the current AI safety conversation started when an ex-Anthropic researcher said he was scared, which doesn't fit the corporate astroturfing narrative.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-researcher-quits-over-out-of-control-ai-fears-707b7628
@cwebber I mean, maybe the guy was part of a marketing maneuver, but that seems kind of extreme on his part. Or maybe the companies capitalized on the concerns he raised.
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.@cwebber the funniest thing possible that could happen is they get the regulatory moat, followed by the bubble finally popping and they all go bankrupt
-
@cwebber I mean, maybe the guy was part of a marketing maneuver, but that seems kind of extreme on his part. Or maybe the companies capitalized on the concerns he raised.
-
@mk30 @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics
It not the "kill everyone" part that is the selling point. It's the "so powerful".
@Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?
-
-
@cwebber I mean, maybe the guy was part of a marketing maneuver, but that seems kind of extreme on his part. Or maybe the companies capitalized on the concerns he raised.
-
@Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?
@mk30 @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics
Yeah, it smells of desperation.
On the other hand, no one in power cared for the long term for a very long time.
All those AI investors never stopped to ask themselves "who will buy the stuff if everyone loses their job" either...
and, in this case and more consequentially, US companies
