27 ms·

Commoditizing AI models serves the interests of just about everybody except for a relative handful of people in San Francisco. The more decentralized control of

Commoditizing AI models serves the interests of just about everybody except for a relative handful of people in San Francisco. The more decentralized control of the technology is, the more its benefits can be realized by businesses and individuals rather than becoming a black hole of monopolistic rent seeking.

s1artibartfast 2mo ago
Sure, but it shouldn't be government operating on the frontier of new technology
- anon373839 2mo ago
  I don’t quite understand what the argument is. Government does as a matter of fact operate on the frontier of new technology. (It’s how we got the web.) Why shouldn’t it, exactly? Also, the US has been involved in AI research since the 1940s. So it’s not exactly a new thing.
  - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
    The argument is that there is a difference between fundamental research and trying to ship finished products and satisfy commercial demand. The government was involved in basic internet research. It didnt try to operate pets.com
    - anon373839 2mo ago
      LLMs aren't finished products, though. And since they are basically a distillation of the collective works of all of humanity, it would make a lot of sense for them to wind up as public goods rather than some special advantage held by a select few.
      - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
        Im not arguing that would be a bad spot eventually, like water or electricity distribution. Right now it's a highly Dynamic field though and changing On a monthly basis. I don't think it makes sense for the US government to try to Duke it out and drive all of the competitors out of business.
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    > don’t quite understand what the argument is Government has, practically and relatively speaking, infinite resources and a monopoly on violence. You can’t compete with it in any true sense. Set a track record of Sherlocking private industry and you won’t have one. In countries that regularly nationalise and expropriate, the government (and its cronies) have to do basically all private investment and innovation, and resultingly, there tends to be very little of the latter.

s1artibartfast 2mo ago

Sure, but it shouldn't be government operating on the frontier of new technology

anon373839 2mo ago
I don’t quite understand what the argument is. Government does as a matter of fact operate on the frontier of new technology. (It’s how we got the web.) Why shouldn’t it, exactly? Also, the US has been involved in AI research since the 1940s. So it’s not exactly a new thing.
- s1artibartfast 2mo ago
  The argument is that there is a difference between fundamental research and trying to ship finished products and satisfy commercial demand. The government was involved in basic internet research. It didnt try to operate pets.com
  - anon373839 2mo ago
    LLMs aren't finished products, though. And since they are basically a distillation of the collective works of all of humanity, it would make a lot of sense for them to wind up as public goods rather than some special advantage held by a select few.
    - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
      Im not arguing that would be a bad spot eventually, like water or electricity distribution. Right now it's a highly Dynamic field though and changing On a monthly basis. I don't think it makes sense for the US government to try to Duke it out and drive all of the competitors out of business.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  > don’t quite understand what the argument is Government has, practically and relatively speaking, infinite resources and a monopoly on violence. You can’t compete with it in any true sense. Set a track record of Sherlocking private industry and you won’t have one. In countries that regularly nationalise and expropriate, the government (and its cronies) have to do basically all private investment and innovation, and resultingly, there tends to be very little of the latter.