6 ms·

> We certainly need to partner with industry. Because they are so far ahead and are making such giant investments, that is the only possible path. And therein

> We certainly need to partner with industry. Because they are so far ahead and are making such giant investments, that is the only possible path. And therein lies the risk: research labs may become wholly dependent on companies whose agendas are fundamentally commercial. In exchange for access to compute and frontier models, labs may cede control over data, methods, and IP—letting private firms quietly extract value from publicly funded research. What begins as partnership can end in capture.

quantified 1y ago
WILL end in capture. Profit demands it.
- hbartab 1y ago
  Indeed.
mdhb 1y ago
This is literally THE scam Elon, Thiel, Sacks and others are running as they gut the government. Sell assets like government real estate to themselves at super cheap rates and then set up as many dependencies as they can where the government has to buy services from them because they have nowhere else to turn. To give an example this missile dome bullshit they are talking about building which is a terrible idea for a bunch of reasons.. but there is talks at the moment of having this run by a private company who will sell it as a subscription service. So in this scenario the US military can’t actually fire the missiles without the explicit permission of a private company. This AI thing is the same scam.
- FilosofumRex 1y ago
  Right on target, publicly funded research always ends up in the hands of private profiteers via private university labs. If LLM/AI is critical to national security, then it should be funded solely via the Dep of Defense budget, with no IP or copy right derivatives allowed.
- mindslight 1y ago
  The political platform for rebuilding our country after the destructionists are deposed (which will happen sooner or later) needs to include scrutinizing every single one of these sales and/or long term contracts, and outright invalidating many of them as the fraudulent conveyances that they are. No just accepting the nonsense of "oh that's private property now, nothing can be done". If the precedent discourages "investment" (aka looting) of government institutions in the future, that's a good thing.
hdivider 1y ago
I fail to understand the sentiment here. This is the intention of tech transfer. To have private-sector entities commercialize the R&D. What is the alternative? National labs and universities can't commercialize in the same way, including due to legal restrictions at the state and sometimes federal level. As long as the process and tech transfer agreements are fair and transparent -- and not concentrated in say OpenAI or with underhanded kickbacks to government -- commercialization will benefit productive applications of AI. All the software we're using right now to communicate sits on top of previous, successful, federally-funded tech transfer efforts which were then commercialized. This is how the system works, how we got to this level.
- delusional 1y ago
  > As long as the process and tech transfer agreements are fair and transparent I think that's the crux of the guy you're responding to's point. He does not believe it will be done fairly and transparently, because these AI corporations will have broad control over the technology.
  - hdivider 1y ago
    If so, yes indeed, fair point by him/her. It's up to ordinary folks like us to push against unfair tech transfer because yes, federal labs and research institutions would otherwise provide the incumbents an extreme advantage. Having been in this world though, I didn't see a reluctance in federal labs to work with capable entrepreneurs with companies at any level of scale. From startup to OpenAI to defense primes, they're open to all. So part of the challenge here is simply engaging capable entrepreneurs to go license tech from federal labs, and go create competitors for the greedy VC-funded or defense prime incumbents.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      > I didn't see a reluctance in federal labs to work with capable entrepreneurs My reluctance is when we talk about fraud, waste, and corruptions in government, this is where it happens. The DoD's budget isn't $1T because they are spending $900B on the troops. It's $1T because $900B of that ends up in the hands of the likes of Lockhead martin and Raytheon to build equipment we don't need. I frankly do not trust "entrepreneurs" to not be greedy pigs willing to 100x the cost of anything and everything. There are nearly no checks in place to stop that from happening.
monkeyelite 1y ago
> research labs may become wholly dependent on companies They already are. Who provides their computers and operating systems? Who provides their HR software? Who provides their expensive lab equipment? Companies are not in some separate realm. They are how our society produces goods and services, including the most essential ones.
- klabb3 1y ago
  Sorry for meta but.. this is one of those rare cases where both the argument and the rebuttal are worth agreeing with.
- rtkwe 1y ago
  For purchases sure but their funding and therefor what they're buying with that funding is not tied to companies at all which is an incredibly important distinction. This rhymes with the old "yet you participate in society/capitalism" "gotcha" [0] and it's worth about as much. [0] https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/mister-gotcha-4-9faefa-1.jpg https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/mister-gotcha-...
shagie 1y ago
The point of https://www.nrel.gov/index https://www.nrel.gov/index is to research how to do renewable energy. Likewise, the research done by https://www.nrel.gov/hpc/about-hpc https://www.nrel.gov/hpc/about-hpc and its data center https://www.nrel.gov/computational-science/hpc-data-center https://www.nrel.gov/computational-science/hpc-data-center is to pioneer ways to reuse its waste heat (and better cool existing data centers). I'm kind of disappointed that their dashboard has been moved or offline or something for the past few years. https://b2510207.smushcdn.com/2510207/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NREL-Performance-chart.png?lossy=2&strip=1&webp=1 https://b2510207.smushcdn.com/2510207/wp-content/uploads/202... is what it used to look like.
inquirerGeneral 1y ago
[dead]
godelski 1y ago
There's a risk but there's also great reward if it is done properly. The only way to maximize utility of any individual player is to play cooperatively[0]. A single actor might get a momentary advantage by defecting from cooperation, but it decreases their total eventual rewards and frankly it quickly becomes a net negative in many cases. That said, I'm not very confident such a situation would happen in reality. I'm not confident current industry leaders can see past a quarter and nearly certain they can't see past 4. Current behavior already indicates that they are unwilling to maximize their own profits. A rising tide lifts all ships, but many will forgo the benefit this gives them to set out to explore for new and greater riches and instead are only able to envy the other ships rising with them. It can be easy to lose sight of what you have if you are too busy looking at others. [0] Simplified example illustrated by Iterative Prisoner's Dilemma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur3Vf_ibHD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur3Vf_ibHD0 [0.1] Can explain more if needed but I don't think this is hard to understand.
- catigula 1y ago
  What's the "reward"? I want to interrogate AI optimist type people because even if AI is completely safe and harmless I literally see only downsides. Is your perception that living in theorized extreme comfort correlates to "reward"?
  - christophilus 1y ago
    You really see only downsides? I’m no AI optimist, but it is a useful tool, and it’s here to stay.
    - catigula 1y ago
      Yes, I only see downsides. It's mostly because the actual stated and actualized goal of real AI is clearly bad. It's like if you approached me and said "I'm going to erase meaning from your life. You will want for nothing. The entire paradigm of reality will be changed: your entire evolutionary struggle, made meaningless. You will want for nothing: "be" nothing. Also this might potentially kill you or some rich person or more likely nation-state could enslave you." The actual stated goals seem negative to me. I'm not very interested in erasing and surpassing human achievement in every way. It seems inherently bad. I don't think that's an absurd perspective. I think the disconnect here is asked in "what is the purpose of life" and I don't think any reasonable interpretation of that is "be obscenely comfortable".
hahajk 1y ago
In the case of huge frontier LLMs, the public labs will likely never be able to compete. In my experience, govt orgs are ardent rule-followers and wouldn't be as willing to violate copyright.
abtinf 1y ago
I would prefer those with commercial interests pursue technological development than those nationalistic and weapons development interests.
KolibriFly 1y ago
Once public research depends on private infrastructure, the balance of power shifts fast

quantified 1y ago

WILL end in capture. Profit demands it.

hbartab 1y ago
Indeed.

mdhb 1y ago

This is literally THE scam Elon, Thiel, Sacks and others are running as they gut the government. Sell assets like government real estate to themselves at super cheap rates and then set up as many dependencies as they can where the government has to buy services from them because they have nowhere else to turn. To give an example this missile dome bullshit they are talking about building which is a terrible idea for a bunch of reasons.. but there is talks at the moment of having this run by a private company who will sell it as a subscription service. So in this scenario the US military can’t actually fire the missiles without the explicit permission of a private company. This AI thing is the same scam.

FilosofumRex 1y ago
Right on target, publicly funded research always ends up in the hands of private profiteers via private university labs. If LLM/AI is critical to national security, then it should be funded solely via the Dep of Defense budget, with no IP or copy right derivatives allowed.
mindslight 1y ago
The political platform for rebuilding our country after the destructionists are deposed (which will happen sooner or later) needs to include scrutinizing every single one of these sales and/or long term contracts, and outright invalidating many of them as the fraudulent conveyances that they are. No just accepting the nonsense of "oh that's private property now, nothing can be done". If the precedent discourages "investment" (aka looting) of government institutions in the future, that's a good thing.

hdivider 1y ago

I fail to understand the sentiment here. This is the intention of tech transfer. To have private-sector entities commercialize the R&D. What is the alternative? National labs and universities can't commercialize in the same way, including due to legal restrictions at the state and sometimes federal level. As long as the process and tech transfer agreements are fair and transparent -- and not concentrated in say OpenAI or with underhanded kickbacks to government -- commercialization will benefit productive applications of AI. All the software we're using right now to communicate sits on top of previous, successful, federally-funded tech transfer efforts which were then commercialized. This is how the system works, how we got to this level.

delusional 1y ago
> As long as the process and tech transfer agreements are fair and transparent I think that's the crux of the guy you're responding to's point. He does not believe it will be done fairly and transparently, because these AI corporations will have broad control over the technology.
- hdivider 1y ago
  If so, yes indeed, fair point by him/her. It's up to ordinary folks like us to push against unfair tech transfer because yes, federal labs and research institutions would otherwise provide the incumbents an extreme advantage. Having been in this world though, I didn't see a reluctance in federal labs to work with capable entrepreneurs with companies at any level of scale. From startup to OpenAI to defense primes, they're open to all. So part of the challenge here is simply engaging capable entrepreneurs to go license tech from federal labs, and go create competitors for the greedy VC-funded or defense prime incumbents.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    > I didn't see a reluctance in federal labs to work with capable entrepreneurs My reluctance is when we talk about fraud, waste, and corruptions in government, this is where it happens. The DoD's budget isn't $1T because they are spending $900B on the troops. It's $1T because $900B of that ends up in the hands of the likes of Lockhead martin and Raytheon to build equipment we don't need. I frankly do not trust "entrepreneurs" to not be greedy pigs willing to 100x the cost of anything and everything. There are nearly no checks in place to stop that from happening.

monkeyelite 1y ago

> research labs may become wholly dependent on companies They already are. Who provides their computers and operating systems? Who provides their HR software? Who provides their expensive lab equipment? Companies are not in some separate realm. They are how our society produces goods and services, including the most essential ones.

klabb3 1y ago
Sorry for meta but.. this is one of those rare cases where both the argument and the rebuttal are worth agreeing with.
rtkwe 1y ago
For purchases sure but their funding and therefor what they're buying with that funding is not tied to companies at all which is an incredibly important distinction. This rhymes with the old "yet you participate in society/capitalism" "gotcha" [0] and it's worth about as much. [0] https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/mister-gotcha-4-9faefa-1.jpg https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/mister-gotcha-...

shagie 1y ago

The point of https://www.nrel.gov/index https://www.nrel.gov/index is to research how to do renewable energy. Likewise, the research done by https://www.nrel.gov/hpc/about-hpc https://www.nrel.gov/hpc/about-hpc and its data center https://www.nrel.gov/computational-science/hpc-data-center https://www.nrel.gov/computational-science/hpc-data-center is to pioneer ways to reuse its waste heat (and better cool existing data centers). I'm kind of disappointed that their dashboard has been moved or offline or something for the past few years. https://b2510207.smushcdn.com/2510207/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NREL-Performance-chart.png?lossy=2&strip=1&webp=1 https://b2510207.smushcdn.com/2510207/wp-content/uploads/202... is what it used to look like.

inquirerGeneral 1y ago

[dead]

godelski 1y ago

There's a risk but there's also great reward if it is done properly. The only way to maximize utility of any individual player is to play cooperatively[0]. A single actor might get a momentary advantage by defecting from cooperation, but it decreases their total eventual rewards and frankly it quickly becomes a net negative in many cases. That said, I'm not very confident such a situation would happen in reality. I'm not confident current industry leaders can see past a quarter and nearly certain they can't see past 4. Current behavior already indicates that they are unwilling to maximize their own profits. A rising tide lifts all ships, but many will forgo the benefit this gives them to set out to explore for new and greater riches and instead are only able to envy the other ships rising with them. It can be easy to lose sight of what you have if you are too busy looking at others. [0] Simplified example illustrated by Iterative Prisoner's Dilemma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur3Vf_ibHD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur3Vf_ibHD0 [0.1] Can explain more if needed but I don't think this is hard to understand.

catigula 1y ago
What's the "reward"? I want to interrogate AI optimist type people because even if AI is completely safe and harmless I literally see only downsides. Is your perception that living in theorized extreme comfort correlates to "reward"?
- christophilus 1y ago
  You really see only downsides? I’m no AI optimist, but it is a useful tool, and it’s here to stay.
  - catigula 1y ago
    Yes, I only see downsides. It's mostly because the actual stated and actualized goal of real AI is clearly bad. It's like if you approached me and said "I'm going to erase meaning from your life. You will want for nothing. The entire paradigm of reality will be changed: your entire evolutionary struggle, made meaningless. You will want for nothing: "be" nothing. Also this might potentially kill you or some rich person or more likely nation-state could enslave you." The actual stated goals seem negative to me. I'm not very interested in erasing and surpassing human achievement in every way. It seems inherently bad. I don't think that's an absurd perspective. I think the disconnect here is asked in "what is the purpose of life" and I don't think any reasonable interpretation of that is "be obscenely comfortable".

hahajk 1y ago

In the case of huge frontier LLMs, the public labs will likely never be able to compete. In my experience, govt orgs are ardent rule-followers and wouldn't be as willing to violate copyright.

abtinf 1y ago

I would prefer those with commercial interests pursue technological development than those nationalistic and weapons development interests.

KolibriFly 1y ago

Once public research depends on private infrastructure, the balance of power shifts fast