3 ms·

Because (collective) we don't own the tech. Frontier models are proprietary, their reasoning logic is hidden, and as seen with Fable the government giveth and t

Because (collective) we don't own the tech. Frontier models are proprietary, their reasoning logic is hidden, and as seen with Fable the government giveth and taketh away on a whim. Capabilities can be gated behind certification programs, or by money, or any other numerous corrupt and non-corrupt means. Model capabilities can be segregated by pricing tiers, creating an economic underclass that cannot afford access to frontier intelligence. For humanity to benefit, the tech needs to be open and equally available to all.

scottyah 4mo ago
Do you hate all lessons from humanity's past or just the most important ones? If it takes work from a specific subset of the population and isn't compensated, then my friend, what you advocate for is slavery...
- thewebguyd 4mo ago
  Ah yes, I forgot, Linus Torvalds and the thousands of others that built Linux over time are all slaves. Guess someone should probably go rescue them.
  - scottyah 4mo ago
    None of them were compelled, and nobody is stopping you from running your own LLM generously provided by others. Doesn't mean when linux came out people nationalized Apple and Microsoft.
    - thewebguyd 4mo ago
      The risk I'm talking about isn't nationalization of companies, its corporate monopolization of frontier intelligence capabilities through capital consolidation and regulatory capture. "Just run your own LLM" ignores the asymmetry of frontier intelligence. You can build an operating system in your garage with just time and cheap hardware. You cannot go build GPT-5. And that's the problem with keeping it proprietary. If the primary cognitive engines of human progress are consolidated within just a handful of closed, proprietary cartels that can gate, alter, and revoke capabilities at will it creates a permanent economic underclass. The foundational infrastructure of our collective future shouldn't be entirely walled off. Fair compensation for a commercial product doesn't mean monopolization of foundational capabilities.
      - scottyah 4mo ago
        And everybody should have free access to the latest medicine, healthiest food, premiere education, fastest transportation, best compute, etc. When you're doing stuff on the bleeding edge, investing HEAVILY into R&D, there's no way to distribute the product to everyone without killing the rate of progress. Free models aren't too far behind, why do only the best, most risky ventures need to be kneecapped? Nobody is stopping you from building your own, better model. I can't help but to see this as you seeing someone else who made something better and want to take it for yourself while heavily discounting the enormous amounts of work and risk it took to make it.
  - bcjdjsndon 4mo ago
    Torvalds hasn't coded in years and lives off the achievements of others. The amount of people that tonguebathe his asshole is astounding. He brings very little to the Linux project, and actually hinders it. But because of idol worship, he's a star on here
jrockway 4mo ago
I agree with this. Computing as a field is the way it is because there is a low barrier to entry. My dad gave me a Tandy 1000 and some programming books, and now I have a very lucrative career. I never took any classes. I never had to beg anyone for permission. I could just get started making things with the minimal investment of a cheap personal computer. (And eventually, an Internet connection. Working with other people is fun!) In a world where everyone is a Claude controller (something I honestly enjoy!), that goes away. I use hundreds of dollars of tokens a month. Suddenly, the kid in her basement with an unloved computer can't get in on the ground floor. You have to be rich to even get started. That worries me deeply. It's a big change for our field, and I don't think it's a good one.
- scottyah 4mo ago
  Did your dad give you a Tandy 1000 or a Cray X-MP/48? Do you really think you need the most top-of-the-line model to learn anything, or will a locally run gemma4 (or whatever it turns into) still get you going just the same as when you were a child?
  - jrockway 4mo ago
    That's true, local models are good. The Tandy 1000 was really only good for a little bit QBASIC. Still fun! The other is that computing in general feels more accessible? While some models are free, you still can't easily make your own model. But I see the argument where you can't really just build your own computer anymore (no one person knows how to make a modern CPU, and you can't do it at home). You are always beholden to society, nothing truly starts in your basement at home. And it didn't in the nostalgia era that I remember either.
axus 4mo ago
AI isn't the problem, concentration of power is the problem. I think we agree!
- scottyah 4mo ago
  Your "concentration of power" is just two labs making models that most people prefer the last couple of months. Neither has more access to capital and resources than Google, more ability to pivot quickly than Xai, more access to labor than all of the Chinese labs, etc. How do you keep from a "concentration of power" without just forcing subsets of the population to use a known lesser model, or purposely kneecapping Research and Development at the labs that currently have the best models?
  - axus 4mo ago
    I was agreeing with the parent's conclusion: "For humanity to benefit, the tech needs to be open and equally available to all." Reducing the power of AI / restricting its export / arresting people who "use it wrong" is counter to that.

scottyah 4mo ago

Do you hate all lessons from humanity's past or just the most important ones? If it takes work from a specific subset of the population and isn't compensated, then my friend, what you advocate for is slavery...

thewebguyd 4mo ago
Ah yes, I forgot, Linus Torvalds and the thousands of others that built Linux over time are all slaves. Guess someone should probably go rescue them.
- scottyah 4mo ago
  None of them were compelled, and nobody is stopping you from running your own LLM generously provided by others. Doesn't mean when linux came out people nationalized Apple and Microsoft.
  - thewebguyd 4mo ago
    The risk I'm talking about isn't nationalization of companies, its corporate monopolization of frontier intelligence capabilities through capital consolidation and regulatory capture. "Just run your own LLM" ignores the asymmetry of frontier intelligence. You can build an operating system in your garage with just time and cheap hardware. You cannot go build GPT-5. And that's the problem with keeping it proprietary. If the primary cognitive engines of human progress are consolidated within just a handful of closed, proprietary cartels that can gate, alter, and revoke capabilities at will it creates a permanent economic underclass. The foundational infrastructure of our collective future shouldn't be entirely walled off. Fair compensation for a commercial product doesn't mean monopolization of foundational capabilities.
    - scottyah 4mo ago
      And everybody should have free access to the latest medicine, healthiest food, premiere education, fastest transportation, best compute, etc. When you're doing stuff on the bleeding edge, investing HEAVILY into R&D, there's no way to distribute the product to everyone without killing the rate of progress. Free models aren't too far behind, why do only the best, most risky ventures need to be kneecapped? Nobody is stopping you from building your own, better model. I can't help but to see this as you seeing someone else who made something better and want to take it for yourself while heavily discounting the enormous amounts of work and risk it took to make it.
- bcjdjsndon 4mo ago
  Torvalds hasn't coded in years and lives off the achievements of others. The amount of people that tonguebathe his asshole is astounding. He brings very little to the Linux project, and actually hinders it. But because of idol worship, he's a star on here

jrockway 4mo ago

I agree with this. Computing as a field is the way it is because there is a low barrier to entry. My dad gave me a Tandy 1000 and some programming books, and now I have a very lucrative career. I never took any classes. I never had to beg anyone for permission. I could just get started making things with the minimal investment of a cheap personal computer. (And eventually, an Internet connection. Working with other people is fun!) In a world where everyone is a Claude controller (something I honestly enjoy!), that goes away. I use hundreds of dollars of tokens a month. Suddenly, the kid in her basement with an unloved computer can't get in on the ground floor. You have to be rich to even get started. That worries me deeply. It's a big change for our field, and I don't think it's a good one.

scottyah 4mo ago
Did your dad give you a Tandy 1000 or a Cray X-MP/48? Do you really think you need the most top-of-the-line model to learn anything, or will a locally run gemma4 (or whatever it turns into) still get you going just the same as when you were a child?
- jrockway 4mo ago
  That's true, local models are good. The Tandy 1000 was really only good for a little bit QBASIC. Still fun! The other is that computing in general feels more accessible? While some models are free, you still can't easily make your own model. But I see the argument where you can't really just build your own computer anymore (no one person knows how to make a modern CPU, and you can't do it at home). You are always beholden to society, nothing truly starts in your basement at home. And it didn't in the nostalgia era that I remember either.

axus 4mo ago

AI isn't the problem, concentration of power is the problem. I think we agree!

scottyah 4mo ago
Your "concentration of power" is just two labs making models that most people prefer the last couple of months. Neither has more access to capital and resources than Google, more ability to pivot quickly than Xai, more access to labor than all of the Chinese labs, etc. How do you keep from a "concentration of power" without just forcing subsets of the population to use a known lesser model, or purposely kneecapping Research and Development at the labs that currently have the best models?
- axus 4mo ago
  I was agreeing with the parent's conclusion: "For humanity to benefit, the tech needs to be open and equally available to all." Reducing the power of AI / restricting its export / arresting people who "use it wrong" is counter to that.