[HN Gopher] OpenAI has upped its lobbying efforts nearly sevenfold
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI has upped its lobbying efforts nearly sevenfold
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 188 points
Date : 2025-01-22 15:05 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.technologyreview.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.technologyreview.com)
| seper8 wrote:
| Classic case of "pulling up the ladder behind oneself".
|
| Probably AI will be a more competitive market than he and his
| investors had hoped for.
| klipt wrote:
| Was Citizens United a huge mistake?
| daveguy wrote:
| Yes. Yes it was. Poorly decided to the detriment of the United
| States. It allows unlimited money laundering into US elections
| from any source foreign or domestic.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
| accrual wrote:
| > The court held 5-4 that the freedom of speech clause of the
| First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting
| independent expenditures for political campaigns by
| corporations including for-profits, nonprofit organizations,
| labor unions, and other kinds of associations.
|
| Wow. Just one vote away from a drastically different
| political landscape and future for the country.
| pkaye wrote:
| Companies could not lobby before Citizens United?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| You're correct. This is unrelated to _Citizens_.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Yes they could, but there were strict limits to it and people
| went to jail for violating them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/Jack_Abramoff#Scandal_and_crim...
|
| McConnell (yes that one) v FEC and Citizens United redefined
| the first amendment to include financial contributions as a
| form of speech and extended to for-profit corporations the
| same rights as individuals and civic associations.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Isn't McConnell v FEC the SCOTUS ruling that _upheld_
| McCain-Feingold? The Act that _Citizens_ overturned?
|
| To my understanding, this had zero effect on lobbying
| rules. Just campaign finance, namely, donations to
| candidates and donations to messaging operations.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| It didn't overturn the BRCA, but the minority in
| McConnell laid the groundwork for the Citizens United
| decision. O'Connor wasn't willing to hand the country
| over to oligarchs like Alito was.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Sure, but that still doesn't address whether _Citizens_
| spoke to lobbying rules. It was more about contributions
| and PACs.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| If you want to pretend you don't understand the
| relationship between lobbying and the ability of groups
| to spend unlimited money influencing politicians, that's
| your prerogative. I think more highly of you, so I'm not
| going to spend my time arguing the point.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the relationship between lobbying and the ability of
| groups to spend unlimited money influencing politicians_
|
| The point is this lobbying wouldn't have been restricted
| by anything _Citizens_ touched. OpenAI isn't giving money
| to a PAC, it's buying bog-standard lobbying hours. This
| is an adjacent but nevertheless separate issue.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| How could it be? It made the number go up for the right people.
|
| And since that number is literally all that the right people
| can comprehend, it's the most important measure of a society's
| condition.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| The biggest continual mistake in the USA is conflating groups
| of people with amoral profit seeking entities that have the
| benefit of legal fictions that protect individuals involved
| from the consequences of their behavior.
|
| If you chain together enough analogies you eventually reach a
| conclusion that is complete nonsense. That's about where our
| court system has brought us.
| 93po wrote:
| I've been saying for years, companies can have freedom of
| speech when we can put them in jail for wrongdoing. I'd even
| take metaphorical jail - not allowed to employ anyone,
| operate, transact, or anything else for the duration of their
| sentence. I bet we'd see a complete stop of illegal activity
| we see every day if this was the risk.
| bmelton wrote:
| This feels causally backwards, as the only point to
| corporate personhood is so that we _can_ hold companies
| accountable for their misdeeds.
|
| Without personhood, we'd have to know which persons within
| an opaque company structure were responsible for wrongs
| against us in order to sue them directly instead of just
| being able to sue or fine "Walmart" or whomever.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| As the old saying goes, "I'll believe corporations are
| people when Texas executes one."
| laidoffamazon wrote:
| Yes. But even more than that having a president that is for
| sale by domestic and foreign interests.
| cdme wrote:
| Nothing like launching a crypto pump and dump right before
| you enter office.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| Depends: are you extraordinarily wealthy?
| nottorp wrote:
| Ofc... it's easier to create legal barriers to entry than to
| offer a better product than the competition :)
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Looks like it is already paying dividends.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Ahhhh the regulatory capture part of modern giant startups.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Don't need regulatory capture to stop the small fries when the
| cost of entry is so high. Only ginormous entities can even
| realistically play in that game right now.
|
| Think about it, where are you gonna get 10000 H100s?
|
| Best you or I can hope for is to fine tune the models the big
| guys make "open source". None of which will be as serviceable
| as their closed models.
| Herring wrote:
| The costs won't always be that high, due to Moore's law and
| other advances. Anybody can train a GPT-2 right now for a
| couple hundred bucks. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-
| industry/artificial-intell...
|
| Also model performance follows a power law. There are
| strongly diminishing results, where after some point throwing
| twice as much money at the problem only gains you 1%
| accuracy. OpenAI knows this, so they're all in on regulatory
| capture.
| gigatexal wrote:
| It's always going to be like this. Take Apple. Plucky
| garage started anti-establishment startup now a giant gate
| keeper of apps and stores using any means necessary to keep
| that 30% tax/tariff/whatever you call it
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Jobs wanted lock down computing as far as the first Mac
| in 1984.
| bmelton wrote:
| AI seems to have validated Wirth's Law[1] more than it has
| Moore's, and they are running in direct competition
|
| [1] - "Software is getting slower more rapidly than
| hardware is becoming faster"
| JohnMakin wrote:
| It's odd you're invoking moore's law here, which actually
| isn't a law, and is well understood and accepted over at
| least the last decade across business and academia that it
| is slowing and is not limitless. As per what "other"
| advances you're referring to, I can't speculate - maybe
| quantum computing? We are quite a long way away from that
| being a commercial reality.
| Herring wrote:
| It's mainly hardware upgrades (new TSMC nodes), training
| data quantity/quality improvements, and model
| architecture (and broader software) changes. Here's a fun
| project I've had my eye on recently:
| https://github.com/KellerJordan/modded-nanogpt/
| swatcoder wrote:
| Nah, training efficiency, inference efficiency, and compute
| availability all have enough headroom that the third-party
| and grassroots models will become increasingly available.
|
| The current leaders basically need to either (1) break
| through the capability ceiling before everybody else catches
| up, or (2) construct law/regulation that keeps everybody else
| out of the game. #1 is uncertain, but #2 is well-understood
| business.
|
| Since they all share that same interest (they'll be duking it
| with each other either way), the result is an "industry wide"
| effort to artificially close the door behind them.
| nullc wrote:
| One of the major approaches is to block open source models
| produced by parties that aren't in the business of
| restricting access to AI.
| bko wrote:
| Made me think what Mark Andreeson said in a recent interview.
|
| > They said, look, AI is a technology basically, that the
| government is gonna completely control. This is not gonna be a
| startup thing. They, they actually said flat out to us, don't do
| AI startups like, don't fund AI startups. It's not something that
| we're gonna allow to happen. They're not gonna be allowed to
| exist. There's no point.
|
| > They basically said AI is gonna be a game of two or three big
| companies working closely with the government. And we're gonna
| basically wrap them in a, you know, they, I'm paraphrasing, but
| we're gonna basically wrap them in a government cocoon. We're
| gonna protect them from competition, we're gonna control them,
| we're gonna dictate what they do.
|
| >And then I said, I don't understand how you're gonna lock this
| down so much because like the math for you, AI is like out there
| and it's being taught everywhere. And you know, they literally
| said, well, you know, during the Cold War we, we classified
| entire areas of physics and took them out of the research
| community and like entire branches of physics basically went dark
| and didn't proceed. And that if we decide we need to, we're gonna
| do the same thing to to the math underneath ai.
|
| > And I said, I've just learned two very important things. 'cause
| I wasn't aware of the former and I wasn't aware that you were,
| you know, even conceiving of doing it to the latter. And so they
| basically just said, yeah, we're gonna look, we're gonna take
| total control the entire thing and just don't start startups.
|
| If this is true, makes sense for OpenAI and other to ramp up
| lobbying to be one of the two or three big companies. In another
| subsequent interivew Altman denied he was ever in such a meeting.
|
| https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/118114058
| Dig1t wrote:
| This is exactly the same thought I had.
|
| With so much talk about regulation and talk of complete control
| of the technology by govt, it would be very foolish for them
| not to be spending a lot of time and money trying to influence
| policy on it.
| seper8 wrote:
| Anyone else find him IMPOSSIBLE to listen to? He really needs a
| speaking coach.
|
| You know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know...
| wil421 wrote:
| If I had fuck you money I wouldn't care. Elon sounds many
| times worse than my ADHD mind but there are many folks who
| would pay to hear him speak.
| akprasad wrote:
| For context, Andreessen is talking here about the Biden
| administration, and his revulsion to this approach is why he
| endorsed Trump:
|
| > I, you know, look, and I would say like when we endorse
| Trump, we, we only did so on the basis of like tech policy.
| [...] Number two was ai, where I became very scared earlier
| this year that they were gonna do the same thing to AI that
| they did to crypto.
| griomnib wrote:
| HN audience is essentially pro-Trump as well. 1/3rd of Santa
| Clara county (heart of Silicon Valley) voted for him, and a
| lot of tech employees come from authoritarian countries
| (China) and really see nothing wrong with authoritarian rule.
| Ninjak8051 wrote:
| First of all, that is factually incorrect -- Trump received
| 28.1% of the vote in Santa Clara county, which is
| significantly lower than 1/3rd. Source: https://results.enr
| .clarityelections.com/CA/Santa_Clara/1225....
|
| Second of all, your bar for "essentially pro-Trump" being
| 1/3rd of the vote is ridiculous, by your standard almost
| every county in America is "essentially pro-Trump".
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _makes sense for OpenAI and other to ramp up lobbying to be
| one of the two or three big companies_
|
| The fact that Musk hates Altman, has the President's ear and
| has a competitor to Altman's main wealth engine surely also
| plays into the calculus.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| you can't have an oligarchy without oligarchs (plural - even
| if some of them hate each other)
| sweeter wrote:
| they hate each other but when it comes down to it they all
| understand their position and common interest in screwing
| everybody else over for massive and unthinkable profit.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I call bullshit. I don't really believe they're saying don't
| fund startups. I also don't believe for a second that they
| think they can stunt progress. We didn't have the internet in
| the 60s.
| loganfrederick wrote:
| I dunno, I've met enough people first hand who believe in
| heavily regulating AI researchers to the extent that private
| companies shouldn't or couldn't do it without being owned by
| the government. It would surprise me that a handful of
| staffers in either the intelligence agencies or Biden
| executive branch also thought this way.
| dole wrote:
| Information wants to be free. If the US doesn't invest, others
| will.
| random3 wrote:
| what does that even mean?
|
| People want things. Information doesn't want anything. People
| want property rights for both physical and intellectual
| property.
|
| Likely rules are ill suited for levels of scaling achieved
| with current technology. A single person can read a ton of
| stuff and retain only a fraction compared to how much a
| system can.
|
| So information wants to be free is nonsense. People want
| access to more information, at the same time they don't want
| others to have accees to the same information. However having
| access to more information has marginal effects when capacity
| is limited. Hence it's the information capacity that makes
| all the difference and this puts a small class in
| disproportionate advantage.
| ata_aman wrote:
| Not putting words in OP's mouth from the comment you're
| replying to. But from my understanding, the default state
| of information is to spread itself, it's an inherent
| characteristic. You have to put effort to suppress it
| (example making info classified or enforcing secrecy). If
| you don't actively put effort into suppressing information,
| it will spread.
| null0pointer wrote:
| Information wants to be free (as in libre) in the same way
| water wants to flow downhill.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Information wants to be free (as in libre) in the same
| way water wants to flow downhill_
|
| Water flows downhill to maximise entropy. The equivalent
| for information is dissolution into randomness. If
| anything, by this analogy, the "freedom" that involves
| information being copied and transmitted is the
| equivalent of pumping water uphill.
|
| Freedom takes work. You don't get it for free.
| null0pointer wrote:
| It's a literary analogy, not a physical analogy.
|
| And I disagree about the work when it comes to
| information. Our natural inclination as humans is to
| share things we find interesting. Like "check out this
| song" or "check out this article". I don't think this
| takes much work. It just happens. In this sense the
| information is free like the stream is free to flow
| through the hills.
|
| On the flip side there is substantial effort put into
| impeding this free flow of information with schemes like
| DRM. Similar to building a dam. But once cracks form the
| free flow resumes.
|
| Continuing the water analogy you could say there is also
| substantial effort put into building the infrastructure
| to make information accessible to many more people. As a
| library is to a city's plumbing infrastructure.
| azemetre wrote:
| It usually means that the US government should give for-
| profit entities billions of tax dollars to benefit the
| elite and corpo class.
|
| A funny anecdote I found the other day is that during the
| Korean War the US government wanted to break up AT&T but
| AT&T got the Army to argue that AT&T was instrumental in
| winning the war, I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader
| to find out if AT&T won the Korean War but one of the end
| results was rewarding AT&T with additional lucrative
| military contracts.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| This was a catchphrase from... the 1990s, maybe?
|
| The defining character of information is its
| reproducibility. Even verbal speach: "And then she said..."
| But digital information in particular is almost infinitely
| reproducible, without loss, worldwide.
|
| So when people say "information wants to be free", what
| they actually mean is that trying to restrict the movement
| of information is fighting against the essential nature of
| information.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I'm not sure. Saying that information wants anything is like
| saying that an LLM is capable of thought - a category error.
| neilv wrote:
| Interesting. How would that work?
|
| The US certainly doesn't have a monopoly on the best scientists
| and engineers.
|
| How long can the US control sufficient capacity of hardware?
| (Without unspeakable atrocities.)
|
| Is the US planning to overwhelmingly outspend other countries?
|
| Or make AI-control treaties. And we'll have AI states and non-
| AI states?
| NemoNobody wrote:
| The US is the unparalleled economy and unlike it's only
| economic contender, the US has future growth projected out as
| far as the turn of the century - China has a near economic
| apocalypse projected for its country by the turn of the
| century. That's really not that far away.
|
| What leads you to believe the US wont continue to ourselves
| everyone whenever it deems want or reason? Historically that
| has been the case.
|
| China's future has drawn attention to the sand upon which the
| foundation of their economic growth sits.
|
| So. Who will outspend the single country that accounts for
| 25.32% of all global economic activity?? Who is going to do
| that??
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| There've been two new generations of kids that have been
| born since the "China is doomed" headlines have dominated
| the news. At some point, maybe, everyone should take them a
| bit more seriously? If one calls current US administrations
| methods "course correcting", the same person should assume
| that another giant can do the same.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| I still remember Russia going to default 2 months into
| the war... western media is... like media everywhere else
| davesque wrote:
| Not sure how that would work exactly. The math behind
| transformer models is really basic. And the world is different
| now than it was during the cold war. There was no internet, for
| example. Also, given that this was during an interview in which
| MA was criticizing the Biden administration, I'm assuming he
| was telling half truths to make Democrats look like bogeymen as
| all Trump crazed lunatics tend to do.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| It won't work. Restricting hard to find and process
| radioactive elements vs math... Yeah good luck.
| loeber wrote:
| How can you expect people to take your comment seriously if you
| can't even spell his name?
| jjulius wrote:
| How can you expect people to take you seriously as a CEO if
| you're going to attack someone for a mistake like that?
|
| And that's to say nothing of the fact that such an innocuous
| typo doesn't change the actual crux.
|
| A little, "Hey, dunno if you know or not, but it's
| 'Andreessen'," goes a long way.
| torginus wrote:
| > they literally said, well, you know, during the Cold War we,
| we classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the
| research community and like entire branches of physics
| basically went dark and didn't proceed
|
| What are the odds that deep within US research labs, we have
| some crazy breakthrough tech tucked away? Like antigravity
| drives or force fields or whatever - complete with brand new
| breakthrough physical theories to support them.
|
| I'd guess suppressing such a breakthrough without raising
| suspicion wouldn't be hard - probably only a few top guys can
| make the intellectual jumps to derive such theories and the
| experimental setup to validate them could very well cost
| billions.
|
| The US government could just quietly whisk away the top talent
| into some secret lab, put out some fake papers showing this
| avenue of research is not noteworthy and not fund further
| public research in the area.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| (a) Like all great conspiracy theories, it would require too
| many people to keep their mouths shut; and (b) nobody in
| China would care about any secrecy rules laid down by the US
| government, any more than Sakharov's team in Russia cared
| about the US's intention to monopolize the hydrogen bomb.
|
| The closest thing to this type of technology would be EUV
| hardware of the sort produced by ASML. We have now given
| China every incentive to put everything they've got into
| developing similar technology on their own soil. Despite slow
| progress to date, they _will_ get there.
|
| Another analogy might be the math behind encryption,
| effectively monopolized by NSA for decades... but nobody's
| trillion-dollar economy was blocked by those secrets.
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| > What are the odds that deep within US research labs, we
| have some crazy breakthrough tech tucked away? Like
| antigravity drives or force fields or whatever - complete
| with brand new breakthrough physical theories to support
| them.
|
| Effectively zero? Did that sound more convincing when you
| originally wrote it? Because it's like conspiracy theory 101.
| griomnib wrote:
| This is so clearly a complete lie - in what universe is some
| top government official in the United States telling
| corporations to a) fall behind competing nations in advanced
| technology, b) set back our technological edge in the military,
| c) degrade the USA ability to spy on and control information
| access/controls in other countries, or d) do anything _other_
| than fish for an insider trading opportunity.
| chrisfosterelli wrote:
| AI promises a lot of creative destruction. There are a
| plethora of historical examples where elites have restricted
| technological development because they thought it was a
| threat to the status quo and therefore their ability to
| extract wealth from that status quo.
|
| For example: Queen Elizabeth refusing to grant a patent for
| the first knitting machine, the Qing dynasty forbidding
| large-scale ship building, or the Ottoman Empire outlawing
| the printing press.
|
| I'm not sure that this is what is happening here, but it's
| occurrence is not impossible.
| miohtama wrote:
| Trump revoked Biden's AI executive order as one of the first
| things in the office
|
| https://www.cio.com/article/3806594/trump-repeals-bidens-ai-...
| roddylindsay wrote:
| Keep in mind this is just the lobbying that requires disclosure,
| which is a tiny sliver of the overall policy effort. There's a
| whole constellation of consultants, think tanks, industry groups,
| "grasstops" organizers, push pollsters, etc. that are the real
| (undisclosed) iceberg under the surface.
|
| For example, here's an example of an effort to persuade Congress
| not to update copyright laws to account for model training, which
| was only revealed because of metadata accidentally included in a
| PDF file. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/23/tech-lawyer-
| ai-lett...
| wil421 wrote:
| Here's a firm that lobbies for pardons from Trump.
|
| https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/01/trump-tied-lobbyist...
| ryandvm wrote:
| Honestly, nothing in US politics is going to get any better until
| we are able to completely outlaw non-individual campaign
| contributions.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _nothing in US politics is going to get any better until we
| are able to completely outlaw non-individual campaign
| contributions_
|
| Banning corporate campaign donations is a good idea. It would
| have no effect on this news.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Even then nothing will get better.
|
| How much can you give in relation to Kelcy Warren? Or Diane
| Hendricks? Or Linda McMahon?
|
| And that's before we even get to Bezos or Musk.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Three of the individuals standing behind the president at
| inauguration have more wealth than the bottom 50% of people
| [1].
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHH-KI2yk8s
| 93po wrote:
| The bottom 55% of global population holds 1% of the wealth.
| The top 1% hold 46% of all wealth. As of 2020. Global wealth
| was $418 trillion. So 1% is $4.18 trillion. I'm not sure any
| three people hold that much money.
| barbazoo wrote:
| This was about the US specifically.
| buryat wrote:
| It's more of a pyramid, lots of different layers are
| interested in upholding the existing system because they
| all benefit
| vkou wrote:
| And one of them makes much of his fortune from government
| contracts and will literally get a personal office inside the
| white house.
|
| It doesn't get any more kleptocratic than that. This sort of
| both sides of the buy/sell conflict of interest would get you
| fired from any properly ran company, but there's nothing that
| will be properly ran going forward.
|
| And that's not even in the top five problems with him.
| sweeter wrote:
| There is no coming back from this to be honest. America has
| been a silent Oligarchy (a government by the few, for the
| benefit of the few) for a long time and now its just mask
| off... and unfortunately, the large majority of Democrats
| have had no interest in making meaningful change, let alone
| undoing these highly damaging policy changes like Citizens
| United and everything after that.
|
| Kakistocracy: Government by the least qualified or most
| unprincipled citizens - also comes to mind here. No one in
| the upper levels of government care about anything other
| than enriching themselves at the behest of corporations,
| and at the expense of everyone else's wellbeing and
| livelihood. Instead we get vapid shallow identity politics
| and "culture war" garbage, and every once in a long while
| we get a gutted out compromised bill that addresses
| 1/1000th of the problem... only to be later overturned
| despite it being wholly ineffective.
|
| I just don't see the government, in this state, ever having
| the faculties or incentive to "fix itself." These
| institutions and "norms" are irreparably broken, and some
| people still insist on holding them in the highest regards
| like they are some infallible mandate.
| aSanchezStern wrote:
| Right, but we've already got limits on individual
| contributions, so even if you have a bunch of money, you
| can't have outsized influence through your individual
| contributions.
| marcyb5st wrote:
| Well, agreed for the common Joe, but that still allows someone
| with a net worth in the tens of Billions to throw money around.
| Especially because these people have a clear conflict of
| interest.
|
| They should ban money contributions completely. Each party gets
| the same budget (say 10M$ and you run your campaign until you
| have money and that's it).
|
| You as a citizen wants to donate? Go and collect signatures,
| spread the word or stuff like that, but no money (IMHO).
| sweeter wrote:
| Japan gives every candidate an equal amount of time on TV.
| Its just one example of something that other countries do to
| make elections more fair. You could limit resources and give
| everyone a standard platform as a baseline so that anyone
| outside of the deeply entrenched dual-party system has a
| chance to win.
| aliasxneo wrote:
| Doesn't the US have similar TV laws with cable networks?
| allemagne wrote:
| We could definitely improve the arrangement of chairs on the
| deck of the Titanic, but we can't even get 50% of the country
| to recognize the most obvious grift in American history.
| ternnoburn wrote:
| This admin bends to money. They all do, of course, but this one
| especially.
|
| Maybe this whole late stage capitalism isn't the most efficient
| way to allocate resources after all...
| asdasdsddd wrote:
| > Altman proposed to the Biden administration the construction of
| multiple five-gigawatt data centers, which would each consume as
| much electricity as New York City.
|
| If this is what it takes to bring nuclear back, maybe it's worth
| it.
| eastbound wrote:
| Can't wait for Europe to set the curfew for lights at 10pm,
| while running AI datacenters.
| baxtr wrote:
| Related: I didn't see Sam Altman at the inauguration. Was he
| there?
| CharlesW wrote:
| Not in person, but his $1 million personal donation attended.
| https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/openai-ceo-sam-altman-dona...
| latentcall wrote:
| I think he was. I saw photos of him there mingling with Jake
| and Logan Paul. Getting selfies together.
| thrance wrote:
| I remember some folks saying things like "Trump's already a
| billionaire, he can't be bought". But him or another one, we were
| always headed towards oligarchy. And I really don't know how
| we're supposed to go back.
| daghamm wrote:
| In the meantime, DeepSeek published their o1 competitor on
| huggingface and an API that costs 5-10% of OpenAI's o1.
|
| Maybe Sam should give up his bribery world tour and focus on
| creating a better product?
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| The logical next step is to ban foreign AI products in US. I
| have no idea how they will pull it, but it'll be fun to watch
| if it happens.
| daghamm wrote:
| Would not at all be surprised if that happens during 2025.
|
| I think the west has been underestimating China's AI
| capabilities. AI is huge in China and they have found tons of
| "practial" applications so it's widely deployed.
| rgbrgb wrote:
| ban foreign math? aye.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| It's not like they haven't tried that before. But again,
| will be fun to watch.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Would any money spent during the next four years from ClosedAI be
| money down the drain when Musk is whispering in Trump's ear? If
| Musk says no to whatever ClosedAI wants, then that's what Trump
| will do.
| azinman2 wrote:
| And yet Trump just did a lot of PR for the OpenAI/Son/Oracle
| initiative.
|
| Trump is simply pay to play. And they paid.
| dylan604 wrote:
| "Musk Pours Cold Water on Trump-Backed Stargate AI Project"
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/tech-companies/musk-
| pou...
| ipaddr wrote:
| If I were Musk I would be worried about Larry Ellison. Trump
| seemed to love him in the news conference.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| It does seem like the emerging startup powerhouses like OpenAI,
| Palantir, Anduril, etc. are all very deep in the lobbying game. I
| wonder if they'll open up government contracts and regulations to
| a more democratic and competitive process, or just become the new
| incumbents holding all the power.
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| This reminds me of when Walter Gilbert's team faced challenges in
| cloning the human insulin gene due to a moratorium on recombinant
| DNA research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which forced them to
| relocate to England. This relocation impacted their progress,
| allowing the team from Genentech and the City of Hope National
| Medical Center to successfully clone the gene first in 1978,
| leading to the production of the first genetically engineered
| drug, human insulin.
|
| Gilbert still got the Nobel Prize for his work sequencing of
| nucleotides.
|
| Researchers in AI, likewise, will have to relocate to more
| favorable countries losing precious time.
|
| https://dnalc.cshl.edu/view/15258-Government-restrictions-on...
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| They better hurry if they want to be the team that creates the
| species that replaces us.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| I think that humanity has failed The Reverse Turing's Test. We're
| being bamboozled by the high quality illusion made by AI. I hope
| we won't end up in a world where an official will put us into
| jail, answering our "why" questions with short "the ChatGPT told
| me so"
| baq wrote:
| IBM's 1979 slide should be the next amendment to the
| constitution. Only half joking
| dingnuts wrote:
| United Healthcare already got caught using an LLM to make life
| or death coverage decisions. IMHO that's both worse than your
| nightmare scenario and it's already happening.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-22 23:02 UTC)