It's pretty simple.
-
@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...
-
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'm writing an explainer on this. Should be out in the next day or so. I broke it down into four main parties: OpenAI/SpaceX/Anthropic; capital markets, the US government, and creepy nerds.
-
@brunogirin @cwebber I mean, almost by definition!
-
-
@Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?
@mk30 @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics rich people don't understand that they're also mortal. To them, it's the "kill everyone but me" machine, their favorite type!
-
@mk30 @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics rich people don't understand that they're also mortal. To them, it's the "kill everyone but me" machine, their favorite type!
@raphaelmorgan @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics so far this is the only answer that makes some sense.
-
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*.Regulatory capture -- always a fun game for sociopaths
Tort law manipulation in disguise.
The fossil fuel industry & its shills in AI want what the gun lobby got; the impunity to mass murder
https://themodernregulator.com/how-regulatory-capture-works-and-what-regulators-can-do-about-it/The goal is to shield profits & privilege to a select few.
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/regulatory-capture/https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/bootleggers-baptists-and-ai/
It also balloons profits for bootleggers, just like Prohibition did for the mafia
and, in this case and more consequentially, US companies
