5 ms·
> He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictio
by worstspotgain 2y ago
> He vetoed it in part because the threshold it applies to at all are well-beyond any current models, and he wants something that will impose greater restrictions on more and much smaller/lower-training-compute models that this would have left alone entirely.
Well, we'll see what passes again and when. By then there'll be more kittens out of the bag too.
> Anthropic was a major advocate for it.
I don't know about being a major advocate, the last I read was "cautious support" [1]. Perhaps Anthropic sees Llama as a bigger competitor of theirs than I do, but it could also just be PR.
[1] https://thejournal.com/articles/2024/08/26/anthropic-offers-cautious-support-for-new-california-ai-regulation-legislation.aspx https://thejournal.com/articles/2024/08/26/anthropic-offers-...
- FeepingCreature 2y ago> I don't know about being a major advocate, the last I read was "cautious support" [1]. Perhaps Anthropic sees Llama as a bigger competitor of theirs than I do, but it could also just be PR. This seems a curious dichotomy. Can we at least consider the possibility that they mean the words they say or is that off the table?
- worstspotgain 2y agoJust two spitballing conjectures, not meant to be a dichotomy. If you have first-hand knowledge please contribute.
- ForOldHack 2y agoOne of the very most apt descriptions. One company trying to raise alarms about another company in the same business. I have been following this since IBM released $67,000 "Intellect" "Business Intelligence." and Lotus HAL.