It's pretty simple.
-
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*. -
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 If you substitute "AI company" with either "drug dealer" or "pharmaceutical company", then all of their playbooks become very familiar.
-
@cwebber If you substitute "AI company" with either "drug dealer" or "pharmaceutical company", then all of their playbooks become very familiar.
@cwebber ("drug dealer" in the hypothetical sense depicted in fiction -- most actual drug dealers I've known have not been like this.)
-
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 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
-
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 the regulatory environment is super lax right now so they feel emboldened to just casually have a conversation in the open amongst themselves about how they plan to be less competitive with one another
-
@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
Now, I want some input from mathematicians or philosophers!
"Presumably a truth wouldn't usually prove *both* a thing and its opposite"
I seem to recall that Gödel had some stuff to say about that...
-
-
@cwebber If you substitute "AI company" with either "drug dealer" or "pharmaceutical company", then all of their playbooks become very familiar.
-
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@social.coop I think it's very important to ensure that anti-AI people don't fall into this trap and inadvertently assist the AI companies even if that means pissing everyone off in the process. Keeping it legal to compete with the AI companies is important! But people who think local LLMs can never be valid might not see it that way.
-
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 How do we "slow" down development of LLM's if they are grown rather than programmed by a team of humans? Would that even be possible?
I think its also important that Deepseek released v4.1 flash just before the weekend with tech (most of the model is on normal ram or even ssd and 8gb in vram) and at price points that no US company can even hope to match currently. I would be shocked if the teams at Kimi and Z.ai haven't been breeding from that model greedily over the last few days.
-
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 This feels very war-on-drugs-ish
-
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 I fear we're too focused on AIs and not on all these nasty AI companies who's criminality doesn't end there
but Trump doesn't want to even regulate the AIs, so we're in a lot of trouble
-
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 I suspect also that they would like to reign in their outrageous R&D costs.
They know their customers are not loyal and are sensitive to both price and perceived quality.
Establishing an anticompetitive cabal fixes that problem.
-
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 Bullseye, especially point number 2.
Corporation == self-serving, full-stop. -
@cwebber ("drug dealer" in the hypothetical sense depicted in fiction -- most actual drug dealers I've known have not been like this.)
-
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 I have no evidence that refutes--or even casts doubt upon--either hypothesis.
-
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 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 indeed suppress the valuations then make a killing on the ipo
-
Meanwhile all the actual #3Dprinting enthusiasts run #OpenSourve #Frmware on the #OpenSourceHardware #3Dprinters!
-
@cwebber How do we "slow" down development of LLM's if they are grown rather than programmed by a team of humans? Would that even be possible?
I think its also important that Deepseek released v4.1 flash just before the weekend with tech (most of the model is on normal ram or even ssd and 8gb in vram) and at price points that no US company can even hope to match currently. I would be shocked if the teams at Kimi and Z.ai haven't been breeding from that model greedily over the last few days.
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.
