11 ms·
>Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview that the US AI Safety Institute – a key government group focused on AI – could ac
by pr337h4m 2y ago
>Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview that the US AI Safety Institute – a key government group focused on AI – could act as the main point of contact between the federal government and the private sector. If companies work with the group voluntarily to review models, the government could provide them “with liability protections including preemption from state based regulations that focus on frontier model security,” according to the proposal.
Given OpenAI's history and relationship with the "AI safety" movement, I wouldn't be surprised to find out later that they also lobbied for the same proposed state-level regulations they're seeking relief from.
- CPLX 2y agoThe fact that Chris Lehane is the one involved in this should tell you all you need to know about how on the level all this is.
- OkGoDoIt 2y agoFor those of us who don’t recognize him by name, can you spell it out a little more clearly please?
- PeterStuer 2y agoWas he not the one that lead coverups for the Clintons?
- natch 2y agoHeavy hitter lawyer, PR expert. Some google terms: Masters of disaster, Spin cycle.
- sunshine-o 2y agoJust learning about that guy and reading his Wikipedia page will give me nightmares for the years to come.
- echelon 2y agoRegulatory moat and copyright relief for me, but not for thee.
- MisterTea 2y agoProblem is they built the moat before moving into the castle.
- altairprime 2y agoMoats are not a problem if your liege lord teleports in and lowers the drawbridge for you.
- hayst4ck 2y agoMoat is an Orwellian word and we should reject words that contain a conceptual metaphor that is convenient for abusing power. "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense rather than an assault on the free market by implying that monopolistic behavior is a survival strategy rather than an attempt to dominate the market and coerce customers. "We need to build a moat" is much more agreeable to tell employees than "we need to be more anti-competitive."
- sitkack 2y agoIt is pretty obvious that every use of that word is to communicate a stance that is allergic to free markets. A moat by definition has such a large strategic asymmetry that one cannot cross it without a very high chance of death. A functioning SEC and FTC as well as CFPB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_... are necessary for efficient markets. Now might be the time to rollout consumer club cards that are adversarial in nature.
- svilen_dobrev 2y ago> ask for regulation then ask for exempt That's exactly what has been happening: Ask HN: Why is OpenAI pushing for regulation so much - 2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36045397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36045397
- api 2y agoOpenAI lobbied for restrictive rules, and now they want an "out" but only for themselves. Absolute naked regulatory capture.
- hnlurker22 2y agoJust like when people complain about OpenAI's ill practices then they use it the most
- henriquez 2y ago[flagged]
- TheRealNGenius 2y ago[dead]
- smt88 2y agoYou need a big "/s" after this. Or maybe just not post it at all, because it's just value-less snark and not a substantial comment on how hypocritical and harmful OpenAI is (which they certainly are).
- henriquez 2y agoBut I already posted it so how could I not post it at all? Do any of us even have a reason to exist? Maybe Sam Altman was right all along
- tdeck 2y ago
- Joel_Mckay 2y agoRegulatory capture is a common strategy for synthetic monopolistic competitive firms, and suckers high on their own ego. Deepseek already proved regulation will not be effective at maintaining a market lead. =3
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y agoWhy won't it? If you get fined millions of dollars (for copyright, of course) if you're found to have anything resembling DeepSeek on your machine - no company in the US is going to run it. The personal market is going to be much smaller than the enterprise market.
- Joel_Mckay 2y agoThe artificial token commodity can now be functionally replicated on a per location basis on $40k in hardware (far lower cost than nvidia hardware.) Copyright licensing is just a detail corporations are well experienced dealing with in a commercial setting, and note some gov organizations are already exempt from copyright laws. However, people likely just won't host in countries with silly policies. Best regards =3
- bigbuppo 2y agoSo you're saying I should avoid REITs focusing on US-based hyperscale datacenters for AI workloads?
- Joel_Mckay 2y agoSalt was used to pay salaries at one time too, and ML/"AI" business models projecting information asymmetry are now paradoxical as a business goal. Note: Data centers often naturally colocate with cold-climates, low-cost energy generation facilities, and fiber optic distance to major backbones/hubs. At a certain scale, Energy cost is more important than location and hardware. The US just broke its own horses leg with tariffs before the race. Not bullish on the US domestic tech firms these days, and sympathize with the good folks at AMCHAM that will ultimately be left to clean up the mess eventually. If businesses have opportunity to cut their operational variable costs >25%, than one can be fairly certain these facilities won't be located on US soil. Have a great day =3
- HillRat 2y agoAs it is, this is a bullshit document, which I'm sure their lobbyists know; OSTP is authorized to "serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government," and has no statutory authority to regulate anything, let alone preempt state law. In the absence of any explicit Congressional legislation to serve to federally preempt state regulation of AI, there's nothing the White House can do. (In fact, other than export controls and a couple of Defense Production Act wishlist items, everything in their "proposal" is out of the Executive's hands and the ambit of Congress.)
- throwway120385 2y agoYou mean there's nothing the White House can do under the rule of law. There's plenty the White House can do under the color of law.
- genewitch 2y agoI heard something today and I wonder if someone can nitpick it. If what the admin is doing is illegal, then a court stops it, and they appeal and win, then it wasn't illegal. If they appeal all the way up and lose, then they can't do it. So what exactly is the problem? Mind you, I am asking for nits, this isn't my idea. I don't think "the administration will ignore the supreme court" is a good nit.
- throwway120385 2y agoThe problem is that it's erasing a lot of precedent that has existed for hundreds of years in the US, and it's not apparent that the erasure will be a good thing for us. For example, the idea that the president has some kind of soverign immunity from murder or theft or graft while they are the president as long as they can justify it as carrying out a duty of the office is pretty abhorrent. Military officers in the US have pretty strict requirements not to commit war crimes and there is a pretty strong concept of an "illegal order." And what we're telling the president now is that because he or she is the executive there can be no such thing as an illegal order. So now the president can personally shoot people and they have immunity from that because they are the president. And you have people arguing that on the one hand the executive has had too much leeway to regulate, but then in the same breath saying that the executive now needs to unilaterally ignore the orders of past congresses in order to fix whatever perceived problems have led us here. Which is a kind of irony that makes me think that this is being done not to solve problems but to reshape our government for some other end. And all of this is compounded by the legislature's unwillingness to exercise the exact power that they have been granted, which is to change the law of the United States. So in this situation it's hard to see the courts siding with these people as simply rationally applying the law, because the law itself as written by past legislatures is simply being ignored, as are past judicial precedents, because they are inconvenient to the goal of dismantling the US government. It's also extremely dangerous because the "full faith and credit" of the United States depends on us honoring our commitments even when they are inconvenient to us.
- fsndz 2y agoDeepSeek really shook them to their core. Now they go for regulatory capture. Such a huge disappointment. Open source AI will win: https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/the-laymans-introduction-to-deepseek-r1-training-80d8ff7a887d https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/the-laymans-...
- noosphr 2y agoIt's not just them. Everyone is scrambling. US tech, and western tech in general, is very culturally - and by this I mean in the type of coding people have done - homogeneous. The deep seek papers published over the last two weeks are the biggest thing to happen in IA since GPT3 came out. But unless you understand distributed file systems, networking, low level linear algebra, and half a dozen other fields at least tangentially then you'd have not realized they are anything important at all. Meanwhile I'm going through the interview process for a tier 1 US AI lab and I'm having to take a test about circles and squares, then write a compsci 101 red/black tree search algorithm while talking to an AI, being told not to use AI at the same time. This is with an internal reference being keen for me to be on board. At this point I'm honestly wondering if they aren't just using the interview process to generate high quality validation data for free. 幸运的是，通过转换器模型，当我们光荣的领导人习近平从资本主义走狗手中解放我们时，我不需要学习中文。
- mattgreenrocks 2y ago100%. Western tech needs the competition. They are very prone to navel-gazing simply because SV ended up being the location for tech once. Funny how they like to crow about free markets, while also running to daddy government when their position is threatened.
- noosphr 2y agoCompetition can only work when there is variation between the entities competing. In the US right now you can have a death match between every AI lab, then give all the resources to the one which wins and you'd still have largely the same results as if you didn't. The reason why Deepseek - it started life as a HFT firm - hit as hard as it did is because it was a cross disciplinary team that had very non-standard skill sets. I've had to try and head hunt network and FPGA engineers away from HFT firms and it was basically impossible. They already make big tech (or higher) salaries without the big tech bullshit - which none of them would ever pass.
- comboy 2y agoHas OpenAI hired McKinsey yet?
- sidewndr46 2y agoI'm unsure if you can layoff AI
- fuzztester 2y agoai can.
- fuzztester 2y agounnecessary. mckinsey uses ai from openai. embrace. extend. extinguish. infiltrate. assimilate. done, tovarisch ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tovarishch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tovarishch
- eleveriven 2y agoWouldn't be shocking if that were the case. Big companies often play both sides
- nonethewiser 2y ago>In a 15-page set of policy suggestions released on Thursday, the ChatGPT maker argued that the hundreds of AI-related bills currently pending across the US risk undercutting America’s technological progress at a time when it faces renewed competition from China. OpenAI said the administration should consider providing some relief for AI companies big and small from state rules – if and when enacted – in exchange for voluntary access to models. The article seems to indicate they want all AI companies to get relief from these laws though.