6 ms·

I'll go a step further, they aren't just pretending, they are blackmailing the country. The sane response would be "we don't negotiate with terrorists, and you

I'll go a step further, they aren't just pretending, they are blackmailing the country. The sane response would be "we don't negotiate with terrorists, and you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused."

matheusmoreira 20d ago
Couldn't agree more. Better yet: the AI labs get straight up nationalized.
- gr_norm 20d ago
  No. That kills competition. I want everyone to be competing on the open playing field they are right now, with losses socialized as minimally as possible. There's nothing fundamentally special about LLM companies that would warrant nationalizing them.
  - rexpop 19d ago
    To what degree are the competing Chinese labs nationalized? And—although this is a different point—it's their flagrant exploitation of information commons that warrants their special treatment.
- underlipton 20d ago
  I'll do you one better: each state gets a direct share. So, not nationalized in the sense of getting put behind a faceless bureaucracy forever; states collectively have control and benefit directly from success.
- azan_ 20d ago
  I don’t trust Altman at all, but still he’s 100000000x better than trump administration.
  - matheusmoreira 20d ago
    Trump will be gone soon. CEOs won't.
preommr 20d ago
> and you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused. I don't understand why this isn't talked about more. We don't need a slowdown. Just double down on prosecuting crimes. Let the companies take the risk. If they feel confident and they're right they win market share. If they don't feel confident, they can not risk it and slow down. If they feel confident and they get it wrong, they should be sued to kingdom come. That alone should disincentivize reckleses behavior like letting models run crazy with large amounts of compute which leads to them escaping sandboxes. This performative "our internal modles are so crazy powerful" song and dance is getting old, especially with no real concrete explanations.
- deagle50 20d ago
  Because they've done a great job in shifting the narrative to doomerism, from the very beginning. And money.
- jbeyer 20d ago
  > just double down on prosecuting crimes. That quote comes from someone that has never tried to get law enforcement to pursue a case. Local or state police are completely unequipped to respond. And FBI is unlikely to get involved unless damage is high six figures. We had an incident where we had a ton of evidence pointing to a past employee. It would have been an incredibly easy case for the FBI. They didn't have the resources to handle it. And this was a case that was gift-wrapped with a bow for them. Imagine a case where we didn't have evidence, or an idea of who it was ....
  - AnimalMuppet 20d ago
    High six figures? I suspect there's going to be something well past that in the near future.
  - Chris2048 20d ago
    > FBI is unlikely to get involved unless damage is high six figures How many figures of damage did Aaron Swartz cause?
- 19d ago
kvetching 20d ago
If they were really worried about the models of the future, they should be accelerating their hardening efforts. They should be trying to speed up progress as much as possible so that all vulnerabilities can be patched before China gets there. There's a world where the labs WANT Open Source AI to cause a disaster. Pacing the frontier just means giving bad actors an opportunity to create an AI disaster which would force an extreme response by governments. Which they seem to be begging for. Dario's big scary example was AI that can hack the internet. Why aren't the labs calling on the government to help harden everything? Why are Anthropic's Glasswing and OpenAI's Daybreak still commercial endeavours? To me, the only real risk of AI is hacking. Why all of this commotion about existential risk? Seems like a distraction.
- AnimalMuppet 20d ago
  Hacking the internet includes things like "hacking banks", "hacking power plants", "hacking water treatment plants", and "hacking cars". How about "hacking vote counting machines"? Hardening everything is in fact part of the answer. Getting stuff disconnected from the internet that shouldn't be connected is also part.
dehrmann 20d ago
> you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused Even with where we're at right now, if people involved with the HF or Ruby Gems attacks faced legal consequences, the industry would get a lot more conservative very quickly. And unlike social media, section 230 doesn't apply, and there aren't any free speech concerns.
- SpicyLemonZest 19d ago
  The HF and Ruby Gems attacks came from safety testing, where the AI providers attempted to understand what negative consequences could arise if someone subverted their safety protections. Don't you worry that legal consequences would disfavor safety testing and thus create more rather than fewer problems?
  - gundmc 19d ago
    I thought it came from RLVR with poor sandboxing and not explicitly security testing.
  - sensanaty 19d ago
    Those attacks happened due to sheer incompetence and negligence, starting from a woefully insufficient "sandbox" and OAI employees ignoring every issue that popped up along the way. If there were actual consequences perhaps they would've not been so laissez-faire with their testing and would've done it in a properly controlled environment rather than the absolute joke of a system they set up.
- pamcake 19d ago
  The initial HuggingFace post on the incident mentioned that they had reported law enforcement. Shortly after, Nvidia acquired HF for $12.9B. No such talk since. https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026 https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026 https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-talks-acquire-hugging-face-13-billion-deal-business-insider-reports-2026-08-27/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-talks-acquire-hugg...
  - 19d ago
frm88 19d ago
you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused. No you won't. The US president, yesterday: U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday likened critics of artificial intelligence to "very negative forces" bringing up scenarios that will not happen, and said he wanted to make sure that the U.S. remains the industry leader. "We're leading China in AI. We're the most sophisticated country in the world, and frankly I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI wins," Trump told reporters at his Ireland golf course, when asked if the AI industry should slow down or be more regulated. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-very-negative-forces-raising-exaggerated-concerns-over-ai-2026-09-13/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-very-negativ...
- deagle50 19d ago
  This didn't age well. False flag security incident implicating open source LLM is next.
charlieyu1 19d ago
Why are we having drama queens like Dario leading enterprises worth billions suddenly?
- anon291 19d ago
  I hope his shareholders sue him to oblivion

matheusmoreira 20d ago

Couldn't agree more. Better yet: the AI labs get straight up nationalized.

gr_norm 20d ago
No. That kills competition. I want everyone to be competing on the open playing field they are right now, with losses socialized as minimally as possible. There's nothing fundamentally special about LLM companies that would warrant nationalizing them.
- rexpop 19d ago
  To what degree are the competing Chinese labs nationalized? And—although this is a different point—it's their flagrant exploitation of information commons that warrants their special treatment.
underlipton 20d ago
I'll do you one better: each state gets a direct share. So, not nationalized in the sense of getting put behind a faceless bureaucracy forever; states collectively have control and benefit directly from success.
azan_ 20d ago
I don’t trust Altman at all, but still he’s 100000000x better than trump administration.
- matheusmoreira 20d ago
  Trump will be gone soon. CEOs won't.

preommr 20d ago

> and you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused. I don't understand why this isn't talked about more. We don't need a slowdown. Just double down on prosecuting crimes. Let the companies take the risk. If they feel confident and they're right they win market share. If they don't feel confident, they can not risk it and slow down. If they feel confident and they get it wrong, they should be sued to kingdom come. That alone should disincentivize reckleses behavior like letting models run crazy with large amounts of compute which leads to them escaping sandboxes. This performative "our internal modles are so crazy powerful" song and dance is getting old, especially with no real concrete explanations.

deagle50 20d ago
Because they've done a great job in shifting the narrative to doomerism, from the very beginning. And money.
jbeyer 20d ago
> just double down on prosecuting crimes. That quote comes from someone that has never tried to get law enforcement to pursue a case. Local or state police are completely unequipped to respond. And FBI is unlikely to get involved unless damage is high six figures. We had an incident where we had a ton of evidence pointing to a past employee. It would have been an incredibly easy case for the FBI. They didn't have the resources to handle it. And this was a case that was gift-wrapped with a bow for them. Imagine a case where we didn't have evidence, or an idea of who it was ....
- AnimalMuppet 20d ago
  High six figures? I suspect there's going to be something well past that in the near future.
- Chris2048 20d ago
  > FBI is unlikely to get involved unless damage is high six figures How many figures of damage did Aaron Swartz cause?
19d ago

kvetching 20d ago

If they were really worried about the models of the future, they should be accelerating their hardening efforts. They should be trying to speed up progress as much as possible so that all vulnerabilities can be patched before China gets there. There's a world where the labs WANT Open Source AI to cause a disaster. Pacing the frontier just means giving bad actors an opportunity to create an AI disaster which would force an extreme response by governments. Which they seem to be begging for. Dario's big scary example was AI that can hack the internet. Why aren't the labs calling on the government to help harden everything? Why are Anthropic's Glasswing and OpenAI's Daybreak still commercial endeavours? To me, the only real risk of AI is hacking. Why all of this commotion about existential risk? Seems like a distraction.

AnimalMuppet 20d ago
Hacking the internet includes things like "hacking banks", "hacking power plants", "hacking water treatment plants", and "hacking cars". How about "hacking vote counting machines"? Hardening everything is in fact part of the answer. Getting stuff disconnected from the internet that shouldn't be connected is also part.

dehrmann 20d ago

> you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused Even with where we're at right now, if people involved with the HF or Ruby Gems attacks faced legal consequences, the industry would get a lot more conservative very quickly. And unlike social media, section 230 doesn't apply, and there aren't any free speech concerns.

SpicyLemonZest 19d ago
The HF and Ruby Gems attacks came from safety testing, where the AI providers attempted to understand what negative consequences could arise if someone subverted their safety protections. Don't you worry that legal consequences would disfavor safety testing and thus create more rather than fewer problems?
- gundmc 19d ago
  I thought it came from RLVR with poor sandboxing and not explicitly security testing.
- sensanaty 19d ago
  Those attacks happened due to sheer incompetence and negligence, starting from a woefully insufficient "sandbox" and OAI employees ignoring every issue that popped up along the way. If there were actual consequences perhaps they would've not been so laissez-faire with their testing and would've done it in a properly controlled environment rather than the absolute joke of a system they set up.
pamcake 19d ago
The initial HuggingFace post on the incident mentioned that they had reported law enforcement. Shortly after, Nvidia acquired HF for $12.9B. No such talk since. https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026 https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026 https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-talks-acquire-hugging-face-13-billion-deal-business-insider-reports-2026-08-27/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-talks-acquire-hugg...
- 19d ago

frm88 19d ago

you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused. No you won't. The US president, yesterday: U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday likened critics of artificial intelligence to "very negative forces" bringing up scenarios that will not happen, and said he wanted to make sure that the U.S. remains the industry leader. "We're leading China in AI. We're the most sophisticated country in the world, and frankly I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI wins," Trump told reporters at his Ireland golf course, when asked if the AI industry should slow down or be more regulated. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-very-negative-forces-raising-exaggerated-concerns-over-ai-2026-09-13/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-very-negativ...

deagle50 19d ago
This didn't age well. False flag security incident implicating open source LLM is next.

charlieyu1 19d ago

Why are we having drama queens like Dario leading enterprises worth billions suddenly?

anon291 19d ago
I hope his shareholders sue him to oblivion