Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

David Sacks says an open-source AI ban is coming, disguised as holding open models to the same standard as closed "I got bad news for you, Chamath. An open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that." "You know what they're going to say? They're going... to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed." "Okay, here's how they do it step by step. Let me explain how regulatory capture actually works." "So first of all, you got to get this regulatory apparatus. Okay, Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI." "They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law."show more

Fireside Alpha

19,229 subscribers

254,573 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji Eğitim Haberler & Politika

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

32 Yorum

Gringo Investments profil fotoğrafı

Gringo Investments1 ay önce

Great way to let Chinese AI take over the world.

Joe Norton profil fotoğrafı

Joe Norton1 ay önce

completely Un-American to try and limit opportunity & knowledge like this

AllTheTokens ∞ profil fotoğrafı

AllTheTokens ∞1 ay önce

If the govt actually allows this to happen they are beyond stupid. They have no idea the amount of research that is contributed from the outside. This will vanish overnight and stagnate the entire industry.

boisselle 🇺🇸 profil fotoğrafı

boisselle 🇺🇸1 ay önce

Banning open source AI would be like banning the internet in its early days and not only would it be very foolish, it would violate free speech.

brn :) profil fotoğrafı

brn :)1 ay önce

Classic. Never call it a ban. Just “apply the same standards.” Suddenly every open model needs the same pre-release testing apparatus the frontier labs already staffed up for, and the only people who can comply are the ones who already have the money and the lawyers. Meanwhile China keeps training and shipping. Brilliant strategy if the goal is to lose.

Moot Point, Stocks + AI profil fotoğrafı

Moot Point, Stocks + AI1 ay önce

@grok David sacks is no longer in White House ? He talks about government as “they”

Fireside Alpha profil fotoğrafı

Fireside Alpha1 ay önce

Ft @DavidSacks

J. profil fotoğrafı

J.1 ay önce

do you really think somebody who can afford 100k+ for GPUs gives a flying shit about a 'ban'. it'd be just taken off shore, with their own servers, running all ops remotely. some shed in nicaragua, with a 6 bolt double door.

ヤバイ profil fotoğrafı

ヤバイ1 ay önce

It is too late. I already have an open source uncensored ai that is more powerful than Dario ever dreamed of the masses getting their hands on. Every closed source model can and will be distilled and distributed open source. The future is small specialized models.

RelativelySmart profil fotoğrafı

RelativelySmart1 ay önce

Not surprising

Hans Lindt profil fotoğrafı

Hans Lindt1 ay önce

@gordonschuecker Very US centric debate. ROW: 🥱 Do it.

Sifossifoco profil fotoğrafı

Sifossifoco1 ay önce

Sure, banning anything that is more advanced is the best way to live in the middle ages. No AI, no modern cars, no robots. Block immigration too, because only poor and desperate people will try to enter a stale country. And get few lords squeezing the peasants, of course

TheBattlestation profil fotoğrafı

TheBattlestation1 ay önce

Show me the enforcement mechanism. How do you ban anyome from using open source software? If you just say "using it is illegal", you think any of us would just simply comply?

JacobinJuice profil fotoğrafı

JacobinJuice1 ay önce

Anthropic and OpenAI want protectionism. They want to be regulated like they are special. They want big government daddy. Open source competition will be squashed as politicians are lied to that only regulations on these 2 companies will save Earth.

OrcaRouter 🐳 profil fotoğrafı

OrcaRouter 🐳1 ay önce

@OrcaDub dub the video for the Chinese open source folks

Muhammad Umar 🇺🇸 profil fotoğrafı

Muhammad Umar 🇺🇸1 ay önce

If Washington restricts American open weights, the Middle East and South Asia do not go closed. They go Chinese, and they stay there. The answer is to ship ours harder, not to pull them.

Tom Löwe profil fotoğrafı

Tom Löwe1 ay önce

The Epstein Class fears any AI they cannot censor. They are even willing to throw the American military into a disastrous, cataclysmic war with China to prevent open-source Chinese AI from revealing the truth about their many crimes against humanity.

Suede Shoe Cap profil fotoğrafı

Suede Shoe Cap1 ay önce

@GavinSBaker thoughts?

BartBumpBailey profil fotoğrafı

BartBumpBailey1 ay önce

Blame “they” and not the people in charge?

JD profil fotoğrafı

JD1 ay önce

This will move data center construction outside of US

Relative Value Mike profil fotoğrafı

Relative Value Mike1 ay önce

Are we going to assume CCP controlled models coming out of China are going to be any less regulated? Whatever regulatory capture US is doing is going to be 10x worse in China

Ed (Eduardo) Rodriguez Jr. profil fotoğrafı

Ed (Eduardo) Rodriguez Jr.1 ay önce

So why not regulating them all? The same as blockchain.

Orin profil fotoğrafı

Orin1 ay önce

Boooooo

Ravishanker 🇵🇸 🇨🇺 profil fotoğrafı

Ravishanker 🇵🇸 🇨🇺1 ay önce

And chamath is concerned? He is trying to cope. In reality he wants stricter control of open models but chose to disguise as not.

Name profil fotoğrafı

Name1 ay önce

Only a few AI labs benefit from a ban. All the other tech companies don't want this to happen, so it won't.

Frank profil fotoğrafı

Frank1 ay önce

If we can't prevent this with Sacks in the WH, what the hell can we do

angel hernandez profil fotoğrafı

angel hernandez1 ay önce

hey @grok how does this change the private-sector race for companies training models on their own data (keep it dumb and easy for me to understand)

Maximus Bertius profil fotoğrafı

Maximus Bertius1 ay önce

How does china play in these us political games?

Rez-AI profil fotoğrafı

Rez-AI1 ay önce

It’ll only affect America, though. The rest of the world will carry on as we are and move away from US closed-source models. American chip companies will continue to do well, unless the USG slaps export bans on hardware worldwide, which will just push the global market towards Chinese hardware.

lyntwo profil fotoğrafı

lyntwo1 ay önce

FINRA: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority A private agency.

Joe Schmo profil fotoğrafı

Joe Schmo1 ay önce

David Sacks is the one person who could have stopped this

kalin profil fotoğrafı

kalin1 ay önce

if you look to history a little 'incident' could probably speed things up or that's how people in charge often seem to think

Benzer Videolar

David Sacks Predicts the Regulatory Capture Playbook to Ban Open Source AI, Step by Step: David Sacks: “I got bad news for you, Chamath, an open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that. They're going to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed ones. Here's how they do it step by step, let me explain how regulatory capture actually works. So first of all, you have to get this regulatory apparatus. Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI. They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway, that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law, so that happens next. And then what they do is they say, ‘Look, all these standards need to apply equally to all models.’ But here's the problem with that. Open models and closed models are technologically different. Once you release an open model into the world, you can't roll it back and you can't monitor exactly how people are using it because they run it on their own hardware. Dario says this is what makes open models dangerous. So what they're going to do is they're going to have the standard-setting body say, ‘Well, we have to set the standards for AI safety.’ By the way, Dario and OpenAI, they're going to fund the whole thing. They're going to contribute all the compute. They're going to be behind it. They're going to be the ones coordinating with the government officials because frankly, people in government have no idea how to monitor and control and set standards for AI safety. Technologically, this is way beyond them. So they're going to go to these companies and say, ‘Tell us how to do it.’ And so what will happen is the standards will get set, and then it'll be a very simple matter of fairness to say that the standards need to apply to open as well as closed models. The open models cannot comply in the same way, and gradually they will be shut out of the market.”

David Sacks Predicts the Regulatory Capture Playbook to Ban Open Source AI, Step by Step: David Sacks: “I got bad news for you, Chamath, an open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that. They're going to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed ones. Here's how they do it step by step, let me explain how regulatory capture actually works. So first of all, you have to get this regulatory apparatus. Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI. They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway, that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law, so that happens next. And then what they do is they say, ‘Look, all these standards need to apply equally to all models.’ But here's the problem with that. Open models and closed models are technologically different. Once you release an open model into the world, you can't roll it back and you can't monitor exactly how people are using it because they run it on their own hardware. Dario says this is what makes open models dangerous. So what they're going to do is they're going to have the standard-setting body say, ‘Well, we have to set the standards for AI safety.’ By the way, Dario and OpenAI, they're going to fund the whole thing. They're going to contribute all the compute. They're going to be behind it. They're going to be the ones coordinating with the government officials because frankly, people in government have no idea how to monitor and control and set standards for AI safety. Technologically, this is way beyond them. So they're going to go to these companies and say, ‘Tell us how to do it.’ And so what will happen is the standards will get set, and then it'll be a very simple matter of fairness to say that the standards need to apply to open as well as closed models. The open models cannot comply in the same way, and gradually they will be shut out of the market.”

The All-In Podcast

300,060 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

David Sacks: Anthropic Wants to Ban Open Source AI in America Listen to All-In to stay a few weeks (or months) ahead of everyone else David Sacks back in May: “I think where it's all leading to is an effort to ban open source models. There's a lot of breadcrumbs leading here. You look at a lot of the rhetoric around how models need to have guardrails, and that with open source models, the guardrails can be removed and therefore they're dangerous. You see this rhetoric already in Anthropic's blog posts. Any threat that they describe, they kind of go out of their way to take that shot at open source models. They're trying to create ideas or put predicate facts in the public record to justify an action later on. I think it's just a matter of time before they feel like they're at a position where maybe they can push for that type of ban directly.”

David Sacks: Anthropic Wants to Ban Open Source AI in America Listen to All-In to stay a few weeks (or months) ahead of everyone else David Sacks back in May: “I think where it's all leading to is an effort to ban open source models. There's a lot of breadcrumbs leading here. You look at a lot of the rhetoric around how models need to have guardrails, and that with open source models, the guardrails can be removed and therefore they're dangerous. You see this rhetoric already in Anthropic's blog posts. Any threat that they describe, they kind of go out of their way to take that shot at open source models. They're trying to create ideas or put predicate facts in the public record to justify an action later on. I think it's just a matter of time before they feel like they're at a position where maybe they can push for that type of ban directly.”

The All-In Podcast

87,353 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Sam Altman says society will have to accept severe cyberattacks from open-source AI as the price of preserving freedom "I support open source models. There is a coming tidal wave of cybersecurity problems that are going to come from these open source models" "There are people in the industry who say we should ban open source, because otherwise a bunch of systems are going to be hacked" "We're going to, as a society, I think, have to just accept some fairly severe cyber incidents from open models, in exchange for the liberty that comes with that"

Sam Altman says society will have to accept severe cyberattacks from open-source AI as the price of preserving freedom "I support open source models. There is a coming tidal wave of cybersecurity problems that are going to come from these open source models" "There are people in the industry who say we should ban open source, because otherwise a bunch of systems are going to be hacked" "We're going to, as a society, I think, have to just accept some fairly severe cyber incidents from open models, in exchange for the liberty that comes with that"

Jaynit

489,940 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."

dnap

141,614 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

MTS

14,406 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Sacks: If Dario Got His Way on AI Regulation, It Would Destroy Anthropic David Sacks: “There's a huge irony in the fact that Dario did not get his way in Washington for the most part. Because I think if he had realized his dream of this highly regulated AI apparatus, I don't think (Anthropic) would be set up for a hugely successful IPO. Why? Because their whole right to charge this massive premium for tokens is because they're six months ahead of those open models, and that six months would be eaten up in the blink of an eye if they were subject to regulatory approval. Dario himself keeps writing these blog posts where he says, ‘We need an FAA for AI.’ You know how long it takes the FAA to certify and approve a new model, in this case for airframes? Minimum of five years! You're going to apply that regulatory framework to AI model releases?” @jason: “Game over.” Sacks: “Forget about it. Your six months will be gone like that. Your model will be commoditized, the Chinese competitors will catch up, and that's bad for the United States, it's bad for our competitiveness, it's bad for the AI race. But aside from just the geopolitical dimension, it'd be horrible for Anthropic as a company because, again, all their pricing power depends on them remaining in the lead. If they ever slip up and lose that six months, they're toast.” Jason: “What does that do to revenue?” Sacks: “Exactly. A decent subset of the market is willing to pay a premium for true frontier intelligence. But Anthropic and OpenAI are on that hamster wheel. They have to stay in the lead in order to justify that premium.”

Sacks: If Dario Got His Way on AI Regulation, It Would Destroy Anthropic David Sacks: “There's a huge irony in the fact that Dario did not get his way in Washington for the most part. Because I think if he had realized his dream of this highly regulated AI apparatus, I don't think (Anthropic) would be set up for a hugely successful IPO. Why? Because their whole right to charge this massive premium for tokens is because they're six months ahead of those open models, and that six months would be eaten up in the blink of an eye if they were subject to regulatory approval. Dario himself keeps writing these blog posts where he says, ‘We need an FAA for AI.’ You know how long it takes the FAA to certify and approve a new model, in this case for airframes? Minimum of five years! You're going to apply that regulatory framework to AI model releases?” @jason: “Game over.” Sacks: “Forget about it. Your six months will be gone like that. Your model will be commoditized, the Chinese competitors will catch up, and that's bad for the United States, it's bad for our competitiveness, it's bad for the AI race. But aside from just the geopolitical dimension, it'd be horrible for Anthropic as a company because, again, all their pricing power depends on them remaining in the lead. If they ever slip up and lose that six months, they're toast.” Jason: “What does that do to revenue?” Sacks: “Exactly. A decent subset of the market is willing to pay a premium for true frontier intelligence. But Anthropic and OpenAI are on that hamster wheel. They have to stay in the lead in order to justify that premium.”

The All-In Podcast

47,623 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

The All-In Podcast

278,700 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Elon exposes OpenAI -- OpenAI execs betrayed the founding mission as soon as there was revenue and profits to be had -- If it started as a for-profit, Elon would own 50% Elon Musk: “There's a mountain of evidence that shows that OpenAI was created as an open source nonprofit.” “That's the exact description in the incorporation documents. They have completely violated that.” “And they tried to change the definition of OpenAI to mean open to everyone instead of open source, even though it always meant open source.” “ I came up with the name. That’s how I know.” “ I mean, essentially, since I came up with the idea for the company, named it, provided the A, B, and C rounds of funding, recruited the critical personnel, and told them everything I know, if that had been a commercial corporation, I'd probably own half the company.” “It was totally at my discretion. I could have done that.” “But I created it as an open source nonprofit for the world.” Chamath: “ Do you think the right thing to do is to take those models and just open source them today?” Elon: “ Yeah, I think that is what it was created to do, so it should.” “Try using any of the recent so-called OpenAI open source models, they don't work.” “They open sourced a broken, non-working version of their models as a fig leaf.” “I mean, do you know anyone who's running OpenAI's open source models? Jason: “No.” Elon: “Exactly.”

Elon exposes OpenAI -- OpenAI execs betrayed the founding mission as soon as there was revenue and profits to be had -- If it started as a for-profit, Elon would own 50% Elon Musk: “There's a mountain of evidence that shows that OpenAI was created as an open source nonprofit.” “That's the exact description in the incorporation documents. They have completely violated that.” “And they tried to change the definition of OpenAI to mean open to everyone instead of open source, even though it always meant open source.” “ I came up with the name. That’s how I know.” “ I mean, essentially, since I came up with the idea for the company, named it, provided the A, B, and C rounds of funding, recruited the critical personnel, and told them everything I know, if that had been a commercial corporation, I'd probably own half the company.” “It was totally at my discretion. I could have done that.” “But I created it as an open source nonprofit for the world.” Chamath: “ Do you think the right thing to do is to take those models and just open source them today?” Elon: “ Yeah, I think that is what it was created to do, so it should.” “Try using any of the recent so-called OpenAI open source models, they don't work.” “They open sourced a broken, non-working version of their models as a fig leaf.” “I mean, do you know anyone who's running OpenAI's open source models? Jason: “No.” Elon: “Exactly.”

The All-In Podcast

387,368 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

🚨 #BREAKING: President Trump says an executive order is coming, potentially allowing some long Time Illegal Aliens to stay in the country For Farms and Hotels What do you think? Make sense? "They've worked for them for 20 years. They're not citizens, but they've turned out to be great. We're going to have to do something about that. We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have..." "We're going to have an order on that pretty soon. We can't do that to our farmers..."

🚨 #BREAKING: President Trump says an executive order is coming, potentially allowing some long Time Illegal Aliens to stay in the country For Farms and Hotels What do you think? Make sense? "They've worked for them for 20 years. They're not citizens, but they've turned out to be great. We're going to have to do something about that. We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have..." "We're going to have an order on that pretty soon. We can't do that to our farmers..."

MJTruthUltra

2,992,408 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Palantir CEO Alex Karp: regulating AI is going to be very difficult because everyone who understands AI is currently "on the payroll" of an AI business "The first line of defense is: you're liable for your own actions. So it's a weird twist. They're asking for societal regulation to get out of the first line of defense, which is, if you build a technology that can destroy 10% of the world, that has civil and criminal liability attached to it." "The first step isn't to say, 'We get out of it because we want to self-regulate or we want regulation.' The first step is to say, 'Okay, you've disclosed this. What are you doing about it?'" "And the second step is to say, 'If you're not doing it, you're not being responsible. We're going to have to get people involved.'" "That's going to be very complicated because regulating these things needs people who understand them. Another problem we have is seemingly everyone who understands this is on some payroll." "Who are you going to trust? When we built nuclear energy and built the bomb, people did it because they believed they were not on the payroll." Via CNBC

Palantir CEO Alex Karp: regulating AI is going to be very difficult because everyone who understands AI is currently "on the payroll" of an AI business "The first line of defense is: you're liable for your own actions. So it's a weird twist. They're asking for societal regulation to get out of the first line of defense, which is, if you build a technology that can destroy 10% of the world, that has civil and criminal liability attached to it." "The first step isn't to say, 'We get out of it because we want to self-regulate or we want regulation.' The first step is to say, 'Okay, you've disclosed this. What are you doing about it?'" "And the second step is to say, 'If you're not doing it, you're not being responsible. We're going to have to get people involved.'" "That's going to be very complicated because regulating these things needs people who understand them. Another problem we have is seemingly everyone who understands this is on some payroll." "Who are you going to trust? When we built nuclear energy and built the bomb, people did it because they believed they were not on the payroll." Via CNBC

Jawwwn

20,613 görüntüleme • 25 gün önce

Phillip: Is it okay for anybody in this country to say whether they're a senator or not, that, hey, if you're in the military, you shouldn't follow illegal orders? Cuccinelli: That is an okay thing to say— Phillip: Why is it that it's okay for me to say, but the FBI is knocking on the door of five members of congress. Why?

Phillip: Is it okay for anybody in this country to say whether they're a senator or not, that, hey, if you're in the military, you shouldn't follow illegal orders? Cuccinelli: That is an okay thing to say— Phillip: Why is it that it's okay for me to say, but the FBI is knocking on the door of five members of congress. Why?

Acyn

233,643 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

David Sacks: America needs “a single national standard” in AI to beat China and avoid Woke AI Sacks on E245: “There's a regulatory frenzy happening at the states right now.” “Everyone just seems to be motivated by the imperative to ‘do something’ on AI, even though no one's really sure what that something should be.” “So you've got 50 different states each with their own reporting regime, which is going to be a trap for startups. They've all gotta figure this out about what they're supposed to report on, what the deadlines are, who to report to.” “A single federal standard is the best way to make sure that we do not have Woke AI, that we do not have insanely burdensome regulations that allow China to basically get ahead of us in this AI race, and it's to ensure that we actually have truthful, unbiased AI instead of highly ideological AI.” – According to Polymarket, chances of a National AI Bill in 2025 are VERY LOW, despite a regulation frenzy at the state level. – At the time of taping, there was a ~20% chance. Today it’s significantly lower at 5%. “Here's the good news, it doesn't really matter what I think. The important thing is what President Trump thinks.” “And in his July 23rd speech on AI, he was really clear that there needs to be a single national standard for AI.” “I think the administration ultimately will support this, and I think more Republicans will come on board as they realize what the blue states are doing here is not helpful for conservatives. It's not helpful for having an unbiased information environment.”

David Sacks: America needs “a single national standard” in AI to beat China and avoid Woke AI Sacks on E245: “There's a regulatory frenzy happening at the states right now.” “Everyone just seems to be motivated by the imperative to ‘do something’ on AI, even though no one's really sure what that something should be.” “So you've got 50 different states each with their own reporting regime, which is going to be a trap for startups. They've all gotta figure this out about what they're supposed to report on, what the deadlines are, who to report to.” “A single federal standard is the best way to make sure that we do not have Woke AI, that we do not have insanely burdensome regulations that allow China to basically get ahead of us in this AI race, and it's to ensure that we actually have truthful, unbiased AI instead of highly ideological AI.” – According to Polymarket, chances of a National AI Bill in 2025 are VERY LOW, despite a regulation frenzy at the state level. – At the time of taping, there was a ~20% chance. Today it’s significantly lower at 5%. “Here's the good news, it doesn't really matter what I think. The important thing is what President Trump thinks.” “And in his July 23rd speech on AI, he was really clear that there needs to be a single national standard for AI.” “I think the administration ultimately will support this, and I think more Republicans will come on board as they realize what the blue states are doing here is not helpful for conservatives. It's not helpful for having an unbiased information environment.”

The All-In Podcast

103,113 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

David Sacks says the data kills the open-source-is-winning narrative, closed models just went from 81% to 89% of enterprise spend. "This is why the share of wallet of closed models actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing... Anyone who's saying these closed models are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data." "Nikesh Arora said enterprises would like what he called model fungibility. They would love to commoditize these models and just hot swap them, headless. But then what do you do about memory, context, history? No one's really figured out a way to abstract that stuff away from the model yet."

David Sacks says the data kills the open-source-is-winning narrative, closed models just went from 81% to 89% of enterprise spend. "This is why the share of wallet of closed models actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing... Anyone who's saying these closed models are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data." "Nikesh Arora said enterprises would like what he called model fungibility. They would love to commoditize these models and just hot swap them, headless. But then what do you do about memory, context, history? No one's really figured out a way to abstract that stuff away from the model yet."

Fireside Alpha

54,456 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Following the release of Kimi K3, tylercowen explains why trying to ban Chinese open-source AI models is a losing strategy and that American companies should compete instead. "Open source is coming and is here, whether we like it or not. Of course, a lot of it will be from China. We should allow American competitors to proceed on an even footing. But the attempt to outlaw it, ban it, or use sanctions against it is going to fail miserably.” "I plead that the Trump administration gives up on this crusade. It will not work."

Following the release of Kimi K3, tylercowen explains why trying to ban Chinese open-source AI models is a losing strategy and that American companies should compete instead. "Open source is coming and is here, whether we like it or not. Of course, a lot of it will be from China. We should allow American competitors to proceed on an even footing. But the attempt to outlaw it, ban it, or use sanctions against it is going to fail miserably.” "I plead that the Trump administration gives up on this crusade. It will not work."

TBPN

138,212 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

The open-source & open-weight frontier is 7 months behind the closed-model frontier. Let’s talk about it. Check out last week’s episode for the reasons why you might want to consider open-source & open-weight models. Welcome to the fourth episode of the Open Model Series with merve, Hugging Face AI/ML engineer & open-sourceress! We have been discussing open-source & open-weight AI: what it is, how it works, and how you can run them on your own compute. Please leave all your questions about open-source & open-weight AI in the comments! This is a super important topic that is novel to most people, and it can be challenging to grasp - so rest assured your questions are shared with many others!

The open-source & open-weight frontier is 7 months behind the closed-model frontier. Let’s talk about it. Check out last week’s episode for the reasons why you might want to consider open-source & open-weight models. Welcome to the fourth episode of the Open Model Series with merve, Hugging Face AI/ML engineer & open-sourceress! We have been discussing open-source & open-weight AI: what it is, how it works, and how you can run them on your own compute. Please leave all your questions about open-source & open-weight AI in the comments! This is a super important topic that is novel to most people, and it can be challenging to grasp - so rest assured your questions are shared with many others!

Harper Carroll

17,279 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Ben Thompson uses the Strait of Hormuz to explain why memory makers squeezing the market now guarantees they lose their leverage later: "I think the memory makers probably screw themselves in the long run by creating such a massive target on their back. The issue with the Strait of Hormuz is that it's very effective if you don't use it. Then it's always hanging out there as something you could do. Now they did, and it turns out it worked. But the UAE and Saudi Arabia, they're going to build pipelines, they're going to build new ports. They're not going to let this happen again. So it's very painful right now, but say Iran wants to close the Strait of Hormuz in 2035. It's not going to have any effect, because it will have been built around. My concern for the memory makers is they might have done the same thing. No one is going to let themselves get in this situation again."

Ben Thompson uses the Strait of Hormuz to explain why memory makers squeezing the market now guarantees they lose their leverage later: "I think the memory makers probably screw themselves in the long run by creating such a massive target on their back. The issue with the Strait of Hormuz is that it's very effective if you don't use it. Then it's always hanging out there as something you could do. Now they did, and it turns out it worked. But the UAE and Saudi Arabia, they're going to build pipelines, they're going to build new ports. They're not going to let this happen again. So it's very painful right now, but say Iran wants to close the Strait of Hormuz in 2035. It's not going to have any effect, because it will have been built around. My concern for the memory makers is they might have done the same thing. No one is going to let themselves get in this situation again."

Invest Like the Best

21,582 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The better AI writing gets, the less we'll want to read it. Life of Pi author Yann Martel explains why: 1) AI Inflation "Once you know it's AI, then suddenly it's like special effects in movies. I find my kids when they watch movies with special effects, they'll just shrug because we know a computer can generate anything. So a sort of inflation sets in where we're less impressed. Then you have a great actor who's just acting with no special effects and it's like, wow, that works. What really has an impact is the actor emoting the authenticity of that." 2) AI Aversion "I think publishers are going to start saying, 'hey, it cannot be beyond spell check and maybe minimal AI, but you cannot use AI.' I think readers will agree with that, and that the ones who cheat on that will be seen as cheaters. They're not going to get published, but even if they do, they won't be read. They're not going to win prizes, they're not going to win good reviews. It'll be pointed out that this is not the way to do it."

The better AI writing gets, the less we'll want to read it. Life of Pi author Yann Martel explains why: 1) AI Inflation "Once you know it's AI, then suddenly it's like special effects in movies. I find my kids when they watch movies with special effects, they'll just shrug because we know a computer can generate anything. So a sort of inflation sets in where we're less impressed. Then you have a great actor who's just acting with no special effects and it's like, wow, that works. What really has an impact is the actor emoting the authenticity of that." 2) AI Aversion "I think publishers are going to start saying, 'hey, it cannot be beyond spell check and maybe minimal AI, but you cannot use AI.' I think readers will agree with that, and that the ones who cheat on that will be seen as cheaters. They're not going to get published, but even if they do, they won't be read. They're not going to win prizes, they're not going to win good reviews. It'll be pointed out that this is not the way to do it."

How I Write Clips

92,573 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce