Post

Conversation

Matthew Yglesias
@mattyglesias
This doesn't make any sense. Pacing the frontier would erode these firms' competitive advantage over open source models. It's just the case that Musk, Altman, and Amodei all got into AI work in the first place specifically due to x-risk fears.
Quote
@jason
@Jason
Get ready for all of the investors in frontier model companies to suddenly flip to regulatory capture mode today Their investments in frontier model companies are currently at risk/capped because the biggest buyers of tokens are embracing open-source models: vertical AI
24.6K
Views
View quotes
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Jake
@JakeKAllDay
They are pushing for regulatory capture because they do not like the level of competition. They are unprofitable at the current level. You can rest assured they will try to ban, at least at the commercial level, available of open source + Chinese models to corner the US firms
762
Neqyve
@neqyve
It makes sense if you think they are worried about being outpaced in the future not that they already are
89
AGIisHere
@DNAisCode
Open source are going to be regulated out of business, that is the entire point of all of this. There is nothing altruistic about it.
196
KZ
@KMZukowski
Pretty wild the extent to which the All In guys - already quite contemptible! - have shown their ass on AI
434
Adarsh
@adarshisit
Perhaps but they this is a move that would mean they get to have a say in the future of superintelligence, collectively, and indeed pace the course of civilisation.
301
Ralph Smorra
@RalphSmorra
I think the idea is, that if AI being at risk of running out of control is believed, that high end, near-frontier particularly china-made open source models could be banned, which would help closed source 'Open' AI and Anthropic.
384
Zoe Keller
@KellerZoe
All makes perfect sense here:
Quote
Robert J Salvador
@RobertJSalvador
It could not be more clear all of this hysteria was planned by Anthropic. From Jacob Coxon to the response and all the rest. @AnthropicAI and @DarioAmodei have become a national security risk. Pause their IPO until we have clarity. @davidsacks47 x.com/darioamodei/st…
278
Bahrad Sokhansanj
@bahradx
I don't think concerns that the agreements and regulations that coordinate and promote pacing can be a problem for open source are unfounded. The point is that they should be addressed. Good faith proponents of open models should focus on that:
Quote
Bahrad Sokhansanj
@bahradx
Pacing the frontier doesn't have to be adversarial to open source/weight, although there are ways it could be. That's why it needs to be carefully designed, and why people who care about open models should be involved in designing and governing this process. A few among many x.com/Jason/status/2…
131
jejx
@xobnu
nitpick, but this does not seem true in the case of Altman
28
chair
@tablefourthree
Jason just wants to make sure that a16z/All-in can continue building crypto casinos without regulation.
5
Zoe Keller
@KellerZoe
Come on, Matthew, the alternative is between decentralised safety (via open-source) and the centralised govt-controlled gatekeeper model (regulatory capture).
96
SPN
@spnichol
They're all such upstanding individuals with no ulterior motives. Trust them, Matt!
22
Matt McDaniel
@813Strategies
It makes sense from a political risk viewpoint. They're very online and see a wave brewing. They high-ground Congress and regulators and keep their internal models humming.
63
Zoe Keller
@KellerZoe
In detail:
Quote
Milk Road AI
@MilkRoadAI
The biggest AI companies may be using safety to lock everyone else out of the future (Save this). @DavidSacks believes that warnings about catastrophic AI risks will build public support for a powerful federal regulator. That regulator may never explicitly ban open source AI.
The media could not be played.
67