Please explain how putting an upper bound on how good the strongest models can be prevents cheaper less strong models from catching up, rather than enabling it. I do not understand this argument at all.

▲

lelanthran 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Please explain how putting an upper bound on how good the strongest models can be prevents cheaper less strong models from catching up, rather than enabling it. I do not understand this argument at all.

They are not proposing to regulate only the strongest models. They are proposing to regulate all models. If they are already on top, regulation may stop them from proceeding further, but it also stops the cheaper alternatives from catching up.

If they feel they have reached the asymptote of the curve, then regulation doesn't affect them, it affects those who have yet to reach the asymptote.

▲

rbjorklin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The general idea is that Anthropic/OpenAI is pushing this narrative as an attempt at "Regulatory Capture"[1] which would allow them to make it prohibitively expensive for anyone but them to enter the market thus stifling competition.

* 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

▲

chanakya an hour ago | parent | next [-]

How would that slow down the Chinese models, given that the US has no regulatory reach in China?

▲

girvo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You target the US companies: if they can't use these Chinese models, then they're less of a danger for a now captive audience in the US (and the West generally).

This is already kind of the case: the big enterprises don't really want to touch the latest Chinese models. It's a real pain, personally, I want to use them at work!

▲

pimeys 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Show them you can burn tokens in seven sessions day and night with comparable results to Opus with less energy and less than 10 dollars a day, per dev.

	▲	girvo 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We have. Unfortunately there are political realities that get in the way, and Bedrock for example doesn't have GLM 5.3 (Flash or otherwise) or anything new/useful I do imagine it'll change, but it hasn't yet.

▲

verdverm 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

1. China is a bigger market than the US for Ai, they are on pace to process 100Q tokens this year, roughly the same or more than the US big companies

2. Enterprise trends are towards open weights, several routers and vendors now have more than half the volume going towards open weights

▲

girvo 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yes, but thats not something a company engaged in regulatory capture for themselves care about: especially if they're worried they'll be outpaced and overtaken by the Chinese labs. Which they will be, IMO.

	▲	verdverm 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		they care because they know it unlikely open weights will be banned, and thus available to American companies, with regulatory capture (onerous requirements) being a "good enough" "ban" that their big models don't face real competition, regardless of the open weight origin. American companies make open weights too, they are equally threatening to Big Ai financials.

▲

RussianCow an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because the end goal is to ban non-US AI companies from being able to do business in the US.

▲

verdverm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it wouldn't slow down China as much as make it impossible for American companies to use non-American options, they care about their margins and don't want to be commoditized

▲

the_sleaze_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	pixl97 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		OK, so how does this help the US? If the US slows down this may lead to people that would have went to US labs to go to other countries.

▲

verdverm an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I heard someone analogize token vendors to car manufacturers, where American companies only want to produce expensive options, the people want cheaper/better alternatives, and we ban BYD because those with enough money are more "persuasive"

▲

juiceland 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

The analogy is a good one, but your explanation is missing one aspect: the country (USA) does have a reasonable interest in having the capacity to build their own models. The “we need to slow down because it’s getting too dangerous” part is probably more related to “we need to slow our public facing development down so the US government can get the best and the American corporations can trickle out what we decide is safe”

It’s similar with cars. It’s not that American cars are better than Chinese cars on any tangible measurement. But America already shipped most of its manufacturing overseas. Everyone who built those factories is retired. The US should probably hold on to some capacity to make cars, seeing as their entire infrastructure depends on them.

▲

verdverm 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

American Ai/Car manufacturers could build cheaper/open models, some do, the big ones do not. It's not an either or, but a spectrum where they have chosen to build only in a subrange

▲

juiceland 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

It is the natural result of a country run by lawyers. China is a country run by engineers.

	▲	verdverm 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think it less about lawyer vs engineers and more about money in politics (now unlimited)

▲

lytedev an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think "putting an upper bound" was OPs phrasing?

	▲	jwolfe an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That's what pacing the frontier is, and is what the labs are pushing for.

▲

bellowsgulch an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s not the argument.

	▲	jwolfe an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Please elaborate on what the AI labs are specifically requesting and how that results in slowing down Chinese model progress below the frontier.