Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. It's pretty simple.

It's pretty simple.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
58 Indlæg 46 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • mk30@tilde.zoneM mk30@tilde.zone

    @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?

    lily_and_frog@mastodon.artL This user is from outside of this forum
    lily_and_frog@mastodon.artL This user is from outside of this forum
    lily_and_frog@mastodon.art
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #45

    @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...

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

      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*.

      mattmay@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
      mattmay@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
      mattmay@mstdn.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #46

      @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.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • brunogirin@mastodon.me.ukB brunogirin@mastodon.me.uk

        @evan @cwebber or he got paid a shed load of money?

        evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
        evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
        evan@cosocial.ca
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #47

        @brunogirin @cwebber I mean, almost by definition!

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • megmac@social.treehouse.systemsM megmac@social.treehouse.systems

          @evan @cwebber not all marketing is pre-planned. Sometimes useful things happen and you take advantage of them. Someone had to decide this was a story the wsj should run, and they may or may not be invested in this narrative.

          evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
          evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
          evan@cosocial.ca
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #48

          @megmac @cwebber right. Taking advantage of the controversy.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • mk30@tilde.zoneM mk30@tilde.zone

            @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?

            raphaelmorgan@disabled.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
            raphaelmorgan@disabled.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
            raphaelmorgan@disabled.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #49

            @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@tilde.zoneM 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • raphaelmorgan@disabled.socialR raphaelmorgan@disabled.social

              @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@tilde.zoneM This user is from outside of this forum
              mk30@tilde.zoneM This user is from outside of this forum
              mk30@tilde.zone
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #50

              @raphaelmorgan @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics so far this is the only answer that makes some sense.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                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*.

                homlett@mamot.frH This user is from outside of this forum
                homlett@mamot.frH This user is from outside of this forum
                homlett@mamot.fr
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #51

                RE: https://mamot.fr/@homlett/117270256444800551

                @cwebber

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                  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*.

                  npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  npars01@mstdn.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #52

                  @cwebber

                  Regulatory capture -- always a fun game for sociopaths

                  https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/09/14/big-ai-sets-out-its-terms-for-regulatory-capture-and-calls-it-pace-the-frontier/5296067

                  https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2026/09/14/viral-ai-doom-post-sparks-market-fear-and-regulatory-capture-concerns-for-nasdaq-nvda-nasdaq-googl-nasdaq-amd/

                  https://www.theregreview.org/2026/08/31/shapiro-regulatory-capture-and-the-fossil-fuel-companies-attempts-to-preempt-tort-lawsuits/

                  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

                  mxchara@cyberpunk.lolM 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                    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*.

                    budududuroiu@hachyderm.ioB This user is from outside of this forum
                    budududuroiu@hachyderm.ioB This user is from outside of this forum
                    budududuroiu@hachyderm.io
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #53

                    @cwebber we do have to reign AI in, AI right now is enough of a threat, but the only people talking about safety are the ones that stand to gain financially from regulatory capture. Yet again the progressives self-own by blindly going the opposite direction of whatever capital is saying

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                      @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

                      nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                      nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                      nobody@mastodon.acm.org
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #54

                      @evan @cwebber part of the HPMoR crowd...

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                        @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

                        ricci@discuss.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                        ricci@discuss.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                        ricci@discuss.systems
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #55

                        @evan @cwebber whatever the "real" story here, they are bad people and should not get what they want

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • aoristdual@floss.socialA aoristdual@floss.social

                          @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.

                          skry@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                          skry@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                          skry@mastodon.social
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #56

                          @aoristdual @cwebber rein: horses and LLMs
                          reign: kings

                          Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • npars01@mstdn.socialN npars01@mstdn.social

                            @cwebber

                            Regulatory capture -- always a fun game for sociopaths

                            https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/09/14/big-ai-sets-out-its-terms-for-regulatory-capture-and-calls-it-pace-the-frontier/5296067

                            https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2026/09/14/viral-ai-doom-post-sparks-market-fear-and-regulatory-capture-concerns-for-nasdaq-nvda-nasdaq-googl-nasdaq-amd/

                            https://www.theregreview.org/2026/08/31/shapiro-regulatory-capture-and-the-fossil-fuel-companies-attempts-to-preempt-tort-lawsuits/

                            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

                            mxchara@cyberpunk.lolM This user is from outside of this forum
                            mxchara@cyberpunk.lolM This user is from outside of this forum
                            mxchara@cyberpunk.lol
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #57

                            @Npars01 @cwebber it's really a neat trick, effectively the tech sector's way of saying "we can wreck so much of your shit by screwing with your software, so maybe you should just give us the money and stop complaining"

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • mcc@mastodon.socialM mcc@mastodon.social

                              @bytebro @cwebber Gödel said you can be complete *or* consistent. You get to pick one! And the Gödel sentences that prove you can't have both are *really* complicated, he had to work hard to design one. And English isn't a formal logic

                              lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
                              lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
                              lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #58

                              @mcc > Gödel said you can be complete *or* consistent.

                              ah is this why good backwards compatibility is at odds with a compact interface

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • jeppe@uddannelse.socialJ jeppe@uddannelse.social shared this topic
                              Svar
                              • Svar som emne
                              Login for at svare
                              • Ældste til nyeste
                              • Nyeste til ældste
                              • Most Votes


                              • Log ind

                              • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                              • Login or register to search.
                              Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                              Graciously hosted by data.coop
                              • First post
                                Last post
                              0
                              • Hjem
                              • Seneste
                              • Etiketter
                              • Populære
                              • Verden
                              • Bruger
                              • Grupper