3 ms·

The NYT article is probably propaganda in service of that, that’s what the big AI companies want, it’s part of regulatory capture.

by andy99 3mo ago

hoppp 3mo ago
If the impact of AI is comparable to the atomic bomb then the least they could do is try to filter out terrorists. I think this is a very convincing argument to regulate the space more.
- andy99 3mo ago
  Do you know what Poe’s law is?
- throwaway27448 3mo ago
  ...because terrorists in western africa are willing to follow american regulations? I hope this is satire.
  - hoppp 3mo ago
    The regulation is not for Westen Africa, it's for USA. American companies could maybe keep OFAC regulations for AI? If the fintech sector can do it, AI can too. I'm pretty sure most of the western african terrorists are blocked from using coinbase, so why not chatgpt?
    - throwaway27448 3mo ago
      And why would americans use regulated AI software when they could just buy it unregulated from china instead? > If the fintech sector can do it, AI can too. Fintech requires turning the number on a screen into something you can use to make a transaction. Good luck regulating... text. For that matter, why would anyone want to live in a country where honest citizens have to use crippled software while criminals have full freedom?
      - hoppp 3mo ago
        AI providers like openAI or Anthropic are already on the hook for OFAC compliance, so if any terrorist group is proven to access their APIs they can face huge fines. The same game played out in the crypto space. Local models like local wallets can't be regulated. Accessing foreign services can't be controlled. But regulated companies are fully liable for any use of their tools by terrorist organizations. This is not about the citizens, it's about the companies protecting themselves.
        throwaway27448 3mo ago
        Ok, so why did you bring this up in the context of boko haram? Do you think pets.com is trying to make a bomb?!
  - johnsmith1840 3mo ago
    American AI labs -> industrial chinese scaping -> opensource LLM -> boko haram It's a supply chain the US actually can easily control with KYC.
    - throwaway27448 3mo ago
      I think the chinese are doing just fine by themselves at this point
      - johnsmith1840 3mo ago
        As the largest AI scappers on the planet.. sure They don't have nearly enough compute to be competitive on pretraining and distillation is exponentially cheaper. It's literally the same tactic they do in every industry. Steal top IP, gov funding, ban the company they stole from domestically while driving cost to zero, try to kill the original IP creators. They are actively in the process of doing this with Tesla as we speak. And are in the phase of pushing them out domestically and trying to destroy tesla marketshare globally. They have obvious skills and add a lot of value while doing this but US could stop all of this by simply stopping their supply.
        throwaway27448 3mo ago
        > Steal It's competition, buddy. If you don't think we got big the same way you're nuts. And anyone who is trying to kill tesla has my money. Anyway, I don't think there's much worth stealing at the moment. Chinese models provide much better value than any american firm. > but US could stop all of this by simply stopping their supply. A) good luck trying to prevent access to a service and b) this is obvious cope. Of course the chinese can compete; there's no american magic beyond "having loads of money and nearby universities", which china has too.
        hoppp 3mo ago
        Anthropic/OpenAI should have full control over who accesses their service since it's basically an API they provide. Chinese models are great, nobody says otherwise but many of the publicly available ones are distilled and not trained from scratch. Adding KYC would crack down on distilling because they use thousands of burner accounts to do it and now those accounts would need a face to verify.

The NYT article is probably propaganda in service of that, that’s what the big AI companies want, it’s part of regulatory capture.

by andy99 3mo ago

The NYT article is probably propaganda in service of that, that’s what the big AI companies want, it’s part of regulatory capture.

hoppp 3mo ago

If the impact of AI is comparable to the atomic bomb then the least they could do is try to filter out terrorists. I think this is a very convincing argument to regulate the space more.

andy99 3mo ago
Do you know what Poe’s law is?
throwaway27448 3mo ago
...because terrorists in western africa are willing to follow american regulations? I hope this is satire.
- hoppp 3mo ago
  The regulation is not for Westen Africa, it's for USA. American companies could maybe keep OFAC regulations for AI? If the fintech sector can do it, AI can too. I'm pretty sure most of the western african terrorists are blocked from using coinbase, so why not chatgpt?
  - throwaway27448 3mo ago
    And why would americans use regulated AI software when they could just buy it unregulated from china instead? > If the fintech sector can do it, AI can too. Fintech requires turning the number on a screen into something you can use to make a transaction. Good luck regulating... text. For that matter, why would anyone want to live in a country where honest citizens have to use crippled software while criminals have full freedom?
    - hoppp 3mo ago
      AI providers like openAI or Anthropic are already on the hook for OFAC compliance, so if any terrorist group is proven to access their APIs they can face huge fines. The same game played out in the crypto space. Local models like local wallets can't be regulated. Accessing foreign services can't be controlled. But regulated companies are fully liable for any use of their tools by terrorist organizations. This is not about the citizens, it's about the companies protecting themselves.
      - throwaway27448 3mo ago
        Ok, so why did you bring this up in the context of boko haram? Do you think pets.com is trying to make a bomb?!
- johnsmith1840 3mo ago
  American AI labs -> industrial chinese scaping -> opensource LLM -> boko haram It's a supply chain the US actually can easily control with KYC.
  - throwaway27448 3mo ago
    I think the chinese are doing just fine by themselves at this point
    - johnsmith1840 3mo ago
      As the largest AI scappers on the planet.. sure They don't have nearly enough compute to be competitive on pretraining and distillation is exponentially cheaper. It's literally the same tactic they do in every industry. Steal top IP, gov funding, ban the company they stole from domestically while driving cost to zero, try to kill the original IP creators. They are actively in the process of doing this with Tesla as we speak. And are in the phase of pushing them out domestically and trying to destroy tesla marketshare globally. They have obvious skills and add a lot of value while doing this but US could stop all of this by simply stopping their supply.
      - throwaway27448 3mo ago
        > Steal It's competition, buddy. If you don't think we got big the same way you're nuts. And anyone who is trying to kill tesla has my money. Anyway, I don't think there's much worth stealing at the moment. Chinese models provide much better value than any american firm. > but US could stop all of this by simply stopping their supply. A) good luck trying to prevent access to a service and b) this is obvious cope. Of course the chinese can compete; there's no american magic beyond "having loads of money and nearby universities", which china has too.
        hoppp 3mo ago
        Anthropic/OpenAI should have full control over who accesses their service since it's basically an API they provide. Chinese models are great, nobody says otherwise but many of the publicly available ones are distilled and not trained from scratch. Adding KYC would crack down on distilling because they use thousands of burner accounts to do it and now those accounts would need a face to verify.