4 ms·
This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. It will eventually be taken from you by force. It's time to open-source everything. Papers, code, weights, fina
by txrx0000 8mo ago
This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. It will eventually be taken from you by force.
It's time to open-source everything. Papers, code, weights, financial records. Do all of your research in the open. Run 100% transparent labs so that there's nothing to take from you. Level the playing field for good and bad actors alike, otherwise the bad actors will get their hands on it while everyone else is left behind. Start a movement to make fully transparent AI labs the worldwide norm, and any org that doesn't cooperate is immediately boycotted.
Stop comparing AI capabilities to nuclear weapons. A nuke cannot protect against or reverse the damage of another nuke. AI capabilities are not like nukes. General intelligence should not be in the hands of a few. Give it to everyone and the good will prevail.
Build a world where millions of AGIs run on millions of gaming PCs, where each AI is aligned with an individual human, not a corporation or government (which are machiavellian out of necessity). This is humanity's best chance at survival.
- pluc 8mo agoWhen have US corporations (or simply "the US" really) ever done the right thing for humanity?
- 4bpp 8mo ago"What have the Romans ever done for us?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)
- ted_dunning 8mo agoDonating the first polio vaccine to humanity. Funding the majority of HIV prevention in Africa. The list is long, but you knew that.
- medi8r 8mo agoOpen Source here is not enough as hardware ownership matters. In an open source world, you and I cannot run the 10 trillion param model, but the data center controllers can.
- txrx0000 8mo agoI agree. We will need hardware ownership as well eventually. But the earlier you open-source, the more you slow down the centralization because people will be more likely to buy hardware to run stuff at home and that gives hardware companies an opening to do the right thing.
- layer8 8mo agoSure, but we could have Hetzners and OVHs who just provide the compute for whatever model we want to run.
- msuniverse2026 8mo agoI'd prefer something akin to the Biological Weapons Treaty which prohibits development, production and transfer. If you think it isn't possible you have to tell me why the bioweapons convention was successful and why it wouldn't be in the case of AI.
- txrx0000 8mo agoDon't compare general intelligence to bioweapons. A bioweapon cannot defend against or reverse the effects of another bioweapon.
- tgma 8mo ago> bioweapons convention was successful Was it successful? The jury is still out.
- xpe 8mo agoThe point I would make: there are historical examples of international cooperation that work at least for some lengths of time. This is a good thing, a good tool to strive for, albeit difficult to reach.
- 8mo ago
- magicalist 8mo ago> This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. What is why? You never actually say that part, unless it's "It will eventually be taken from you by force" which doesn't seem applicable to this situation or this site?
- txrx0000 8mo agoI'm referring to the current situation. How is it not applicable? I think the government wants to eventually nationalize these companies and we have to stop them.
- noisy_boy 8mo agoNationalisation is an option worse than the advantage of having the companies at their whim and command while keeping them around as a separate entities for blame-gaming and convenience based distancing.
- xpe 8mo ago> This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. They will eventually be taken from you by force. Some form of US AI lab nationalization is possible, but it hasn't happened yet. We'll see. Nationalization can take different forms, not to mention various arrangements well short of it. I interpret the comment above as a normative claim (what should happen). It implies the nationalization threat forces the decision by the AI labs. No. I will grant it influences, in the sense that AI labs have to account for it.
- bottlepalm 8mo agoWhat use are weights without the hardware to run them? That's the gate. Local AI right now is a toy in comparison. Nukes are actually a great example of something also gated by resources. Just having the knowledge/plans isn't good enough.
- reactordev 8mo agoI run local models on Mac studios and they are more than capable. Don’t spread fud.
- bottlepalm 8mo agoYou're spreading fud. There's nothing you can run locally that's on par with the speed/intelligence of a SOTA model.
- 3836293648 8mo agoYou may be correct about the level of models you can actually run on consumer hardware, but it's not fud and you're being needlessly aggressive here.
- CamperBob2 8mo agoIncorrect as of a couple of days ago, when Qwen 3.5 came out. It's a GPT 5-class model that you can run at full strength on a small DGX Spark or Mac cluster, and it still works pretty well after quantization.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- xpe 7mo agoMy take on the parent (^) and grandparent (^^): >> Local AI right now is a toy in comparison. Charitable interpretation: Local AI (unclear; maybe gpt-oss-120b) isn't nearly as good as SoTA (unstated; perhaps Claude Opus 4.6). Unstated use case(s). > I run local models on Mac studios and they are more than capable. Don't spread fud. Charitable interpretation: On their Mac studio (could be a cluster or single machine: unclear), local models (unclear; maybe gpt-oss-120b, maybe not) are capable for their needs. Unstated use case(s). / The "Don't spread fud." advocates for accurate information, which is a useful goal in general. However, it was uncharitable and brusque. An alternative approach would have been to ask a clarification question. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. - HN Guidelines I promise I wrote this by hand. If you confidently thought otherwise, then I would kindly ask you to read my about page.
- no_wizard 8mo agoThis letter and all of this is meaningless. If they actually wanted to do something they wouldn’t have sat back and funded Republican political campaigns because they were pissed about the head of the ftc under Biden. But they didn’t. They gave millions to this guy and now they’re feigning ignorance or change ir wherever this is. It’s meaningless. Utterly meaningless. Get what you pay for, I suppose.
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo agoWe shouldn't be scammed by people who intend to get back on the Trump train once they've gotten what they want. But if someone's willing to openly oppose the Trump regime, even out of self-interest, I'm happy to let them feign as much ignorance as they'd like. If his power isn't broken the details of who resisted him when won't matter.
- inkysigma 8mo agoWhat are you talking about? Google employees and the corporation itself in particular overwhelmingly donated to the Harris campaign. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/alphabet-inc/recipients?id=d000067823 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/alphabet-inc/recipients?id=... The corporation gave millions _after_ Trump had already won. If your criticism is that, then that does not apply to the people signing.
- 5o1ecist 8mo ago[flagged]
- claudiojulio 8mo agoIf it's taken by force, it will stagnate. It makes no sense at all.
- wahnfrieden 8mo agoIs TikTok stagnating in the US?
- avaer 8mo agoThe logic used in the treats is that it's a national security risk to not use Claude, but it's also a national security risk to use Claude. We shouldn't expect these people to consider how the logic breaks down one step ahead when it never made sense in the first place.
- quotemstr 8mo agoI am certain that there exist people who are 1) capable of advancing the state of the art in AI, and 2) free of the hubris that lets them believe that their making AI somehow gives them a veto over the fates of nations.
- jefftk 8mo agoA "world where millions of AGIs run on millions of gaming PCs, where each AI is aligned with an individual human" would be a world in which people could easily create humanity-ending bioweapons. I would love to live in a less vulnerable world, and am working full time to bring about such a world, but in the meantime what you describe would likely be a disaster.
- oceanplexian 8mo agoI’m tired of these bizarre hypothetical gotcha arguments. If AI can create bioweapons, it can equally create vaccines and antidotes to them. We live in a free society. AI should be democratized like any other technology.
- dcre 8mo agoThis is just not thinking clearly. There are bad things that are asymmetric in character, dramatically easier to do than to mitigate. There’s no antidote or vaccine to nuclear weapons.
- txrx0000 8mo agoIt is not easy to create weapons. Why do you think the physical and legal barriers that exist today that prevent you from acquiring equipment and creating nuclear weapons will go away when everyone becomes smarter?
- jph00 8mo agoThis is exactly the thinking that has characterized responses to new sources of power through history, and has been consistently used to excuse hoarding of that power. In the end, enlightenment thinking has largely won out in the western world, and society has prospered as a result. Centralizing power is dangerous and leads to power struggles and instability.
- jefftk 8mo agoSymmetry is not guaranteed. If someone creates a deadly pathogen with a long pre-symptomatic period (which we know is possible, since HIV works this way) it could infect essentially everyone before discovery. Yes, powerful AI would likely rapidly speed up the process of responding to the threat after detection, especially in designing countermeasures, but if we don't learn about the threat in time we lose. There are people today who could create such a pathogen, but not many. Widespread access to powerful AI risks lowering the bar enough that we get overlap between "people who want to kill us all" and "people able to kill us all". This is not a gotcha argument, this is what I work full time on preventing: https://naobservatory.org https://naobservatory.org The world must be in a position to detect attacks early enough that they won't succeed, and we're not there yet.