4 ms·

OpenAI, Anthropic, Google employees support California AI bill

20 points by elsewhen 2y ago

123yawaworht456 2y ago
please regulate our competitors
tahoeskibum 2y ago
Doesn't it cement the position of these companies through regulatory capture?
- superkuh 2y ago
  It doesn't even need to be regulatory capture to cement their positions and prevent competition. It just needs to be enough regulatory burden (even if justified) to prevent competitors (or other human persons) from doing what they did. I'd be shocked if the megacorps were not actively lobbying to seal off the market like this.
decremental 2y ago
[dead]
aucisson_masque 2y ago
That's the first step to regulate artificial intelligence or LLM market. Enjoy free and open model like lama or mistral while it lasts because openai and Google has way enough money to lobby politicians. Personally I find that the idea of LLM being dangerous is laughable, there is nothing llm are going to give you that Google or bing can't already. That's just 101 on killing entrepreneurship and competition in a free market, regulate it until only the big one can be part of it.
seydor 2y ago
Four of us is enough
striking 2y ago
I feel like other comments in this thread are not quite getting what the story is saying. OpenAI (and probably others) do not like the bill. Their employees do on account of (possibly among other things) the whistleblower protections offered. If you're going to write the same thing regardless of what the story actually says (e.g. regulatory capture is bad) what's the point of writing it?
diggan 2y ago
Slightly off-topic: Is it legal to call your company whatever you want in the US? For example, could I create a company called "Free food for everyone" but then charge for the food I'm offering? Or a company called "The only non-poisoned cupcakes in NYC"? Seemingly, OpenAI does everything they can do prevent competitors or helping anyone else but their investors/shareholders, but at one point someone has to have enough influence/smarts to get them to change the name, right?
- gs17 2y ago
  > "The only non-poisoned cupcakes in NYC"? The issue would more likely be from the implication about your competitors than the false claim in general.
- vasco 2y ago
  OpenAI is against this bill, as written in the article.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  Here in Argentina had a sunfloer oil brand that claimed to be cholesterol free (never claimed to be the only one). Anyway they were forced to add a small remark that says "like all vegetable oils".
  - gs17 2y ago
    A bit like non-GMO, gluten free salt.
vasco 2y ago
In the definitions of which models it applies to: > An artificial intelligence model trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations, the cost of which exceeds one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) when calculated using the average market prices of cloud compute at the start of training as reasonably assessed by the developer So unless you casually think you're going to throw 100 million dollars at a model training run, you're safe to innovate. The bill itself seems reasonable to me and I'm in the camp of superalignment not really mattering because you don't know who the AI is going to align with, and there's many people with bad intent. The outcome of a model deciding to be evil or an evil person using a super-aligned model is pretty much the same except for 1 extra prompt.
- yeahwhatever10 2y ago
  How exactly are they going to measure the compute number?
  - striking 2y ago
    > when calculated using the average market prices of cloud compute at the start of training as reasonably assessed by the developer
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  1. The point is once a bill like this goes through, it is easy to lower the numbers. 2. And in the future, these operations will be much cheaper. 3. New or better architectures can be more powerful with lesser compute.
  - striking 2y ago
    If the operations are getting cheaper over time, doesn't that leave more room for AI to get better as time goes on?
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
tgma 2y ago
The HN title is misleading and clickbait. OpenAI is not supporting. Several employees of OpenAI et al may do.
- nextaccountic 2y ago
  The title is "OpenAI, Anthropic, Google employees support California AI bill"
  - tgma 2y ago
    That's the HTML <title>. The actual headline is more accurate: "Exclusive: Employees at top AI firms back California's AI bill"

20 points by elsewhen 2y ago

123yawaworht456 2y ago

please regulate our competitors

tahoeskibum 2y ago

Doesn't it cement the position of these companies through regulatory capture?

superkuh 2y ago
It doesn't even need to be regulatory capture to cement their positions and prevent competition. It just needs to be enough regulatory burden (even if justified) to prevent competitors (or other human persons) from doing what they did. I'd be shocked if the megacorps were not actively lobbying to seal off the market like this.

decremental 2y ago

[dead]

aucisson_masque 2y ago

That's the first step to regulate artificial intelligence or LLM market. Enjoy free and open model like lama or mistral while it lasts because openai and Google has way enough money to lobby politicians. Personally I find that the idea of LLM being dangerous is laughable, there is nothing llm are going to give you that Google or bing can't already. That's just 101 on killing entrepreneurship and competition in a free market, regulate it until only the big one can be part of it.

seydor 2y ago

Four of us is enough

striking 2y ago

I feel like other comments in this thread are not quite getting what the story is saying. OpenAI (and probably others) do not like the bill. Their employees do on account of (possibly among other things) the whistleblower protections offered. If you're going to write the same thing regardless of what the story actually says (e.g. regulatory capture is bad) what's the point of writing it?

diggan 2y ago

Slightly off-topic: Is it legal to call your company whatever you want in the US? For example, could I create a company called "Free food for everyone" but then charge for the food I'm offering? Or a company called "The only non-poisoned cupcakes in NYC"? Seemingly, OpenAI does everything they can do prevent competitors or helping anyone else but their investors/shareholders, but at one point someone has to have enough influence/smarts to get them to change the name, right?

gs17 2y ago
> "The only non-poisoned cupcakes in NYC"? The issue would more likely be from the implication about your competitors than the false claim in general.
vasco 2y ago
OpenAI is against this bill, as written in the article.
gus_massa 2y ago
Here in Argentina had a sunfloer oil brand that claimed to be cholesterol free (never claimed to be the only one). Anyway they were forced to add a small remark that says "like all vegetable oils".
- gs17 2y ago
  A bit like non-GMO, gluten free salt.

vasco 2y ago

In the definitions of which models it applies to: > An artificial intelligence model trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations, the cost of which exceeds one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) when calculated using the average market prices of cloud compute at the start of training as reasonably assessed by the developer So unless you casually think you're going to throw 100 million dollars at a model training run, you're safe to innovate. The bill itself seems reasonable to me and I'm in the camp of superalignment not really mattering because you don't know who the AI is going to align with, and there's many people with bad intent. The outcome of a model deciding to be evil or an evil person using a super-aligned model is pretty much the same except for 1 extra prompt.

yeahwhatever10 2y ago
How exactly are they going to measure the compute number?
- striking 2y ago
  > when calculated using the average market prices of cloud compute at the start of training as reasonably assessed by the developer
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
1. The point is once a bill like this goes through, it is easy to lower the numbers. 2. And in the future, these operations will be much cheaper. 3. New or better architectures can be more powerful with lesser compute.
- striking 2y ago
  If the operations are getting cheaper over time, doesn't that leave more room for AI to get better as time goes on?
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago

tgma 2y ago

The HN title is misleading and clickbait. OpenAI is not supporting. Several employees of OpenAI et al may do.

nextaccountic 2y ago
The title is "OpenAI, Anthropic, Google employees support California AI bill"
- tgma 2y ago
  That's the HTML <title>. The actual headline is more accurate: "Exclusive: Employees at top AI firms back California's AI bill"