| ▲ | tyre 4 hours ago | |||||||
What are you suggesting as an alternative? Everyone seems to want some fairytale world where there are open models, they’re all safe according to that person’s exact balance of risk and capabilities, and no one except the author or cynics are acting in good faith. What Dario lays out is very reasonable _of course_ the devil is in the details, but between him and Altman, there’s a clear divide on who to trust. | ||||||||
| ▲ | sbarre 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
How about we don't trust either of the proprietary shovel salesmen? | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | cogman10 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
> What are you suggesting as an alternative? This isn't something that can be regulated. Plain and simple. If a dangerous model can exist and is being developed by a foreign adversary then no level of US law will stop said model from making it's way to hardware capable of running it. Even if direct transmission is impossible, it's FAR too easy to shove a model's data onto 1 or more thumb drives or hard drives and smuggle them pretty much anywhere in the world. The only way to actually mitigate this sort of risk would be a global government with deep enforcement powers. That doesn't exist and won't exist. The UN is the closest we have to anything like that and... yeah... Dario is fear mongering. He knows his proposals won't be even a minor speed bump in a dangerous model being created and used. His "reasonable" proposals are for the US market only and are literally just to create a bigger moat for his own company. They don't make anyone safer other than his shareholder's wallets. The only people he stops these dangerous models from being used by are people that won't be using them in a dangerous fashion. | ||||||||
| ▲ | crossroadsguy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
There is no alternative. Why? The regulation is good only for US interests. It will be disastrous for the rest of the world like anything US has regulated (how dangerous that was like "nukes") and a lot of the world again will/might have to live under the American AI thumb, like it did (and many countries still do) under the US nuclear emboldened thumb. > Everyone seems to want some fairytale world where there are open models No, everyone wants a fairytale world where regulations are done "fairly", "openly", and "equally" - for both access and advancement. And everyone knows that's not gonna happen. Hell, everyone now knows exactly what it is. If you haven't understood it yet, then either you don't want to, or you just can't (for whatever reason). No one wants to die in a nuclear or AI or AI+nuclear holocaust. But HN doesn't read world history, does it? | ||||||||