Comment by mlfreeman
Comment by mlfreeman a day ago
What do the regulators writing this intend for this to slow down/stop?
I can't seem to find any information about that anywhere.
Comment by mlfreeman a day ago
What do the regulators writing this intend for this to slow down/stop?
I can't seem to find any information about that anywhere.
China is leading AI race with their open source deepseek-v3. It is laughable to think they this regulation with stop them. USA should actually collaborate, not isolate.
China engineers have capability to get around these silly sanctions, by renting cloud GPUs from USA companies for example, to get access to as many compute as they want. or to use consumer grade compute, or their homegrown Chinese CPUs/GPUs.
USA should actually embrace open source and collaborate together, as we are still in the very beginning of AI revolution
The entire point is to not collaborate, because this tech is being used for military purposes. The US wants to throw up roadblocks to make it more difficult. Obviously, against a foreign military, anything is a mitigation and not a prevention.
> China engineers have capability to get around these silly sanctions, by renting cloud GPUs from USA companies for example
That's why they're also moving towards KYC for cloud providers.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/29/2024-01...
Also when you look at the list of nations targeted it's easy to see that this is not necessarily only about China. I think on HN people get China blindness and maybe have a hard time seeing other threats out there.
The list is controversial obviously, but I have to think nations wouldn't be on any tier of the list except the no-restrictions tier if there wasn't something our intel people weren't worried about. Maybe the concerns are not legitimate, but there's definitely a reason we don't want those nations having access to SOTA AI models.
Maybe they intend for it to speed up/start implementation of federal agencies and regulations. The intent is to exert control over an emerging market while it’s still comprised of cooperative participants. Regulators want to define the regulatory frameworks rather than relying on self-policing before it’s “too late.”
Let’s see if this survives the next administration. Normally I’d be skeptical, but Musk has openly advocated about the “dangers” of AI and will likely embrace attempts to regulate it, especially since he’s in a position to benefit from the regulatory capture. In fact he’s doubly well-placed to take advantage of it. Regardless of his politics, xAI is a market leader and would already be naturally predisposed to participate in regulatory capture. But now he also enjoys unprecedented influence over policymaking (Mar a Lago) and regulatory reform (DOGE). It’s hard to see how he wouldn’t capitalize on that position.
> Regardless of his politics, xAI is a market leader
Lol what?
The only people who think this are Elon fanboys.
I guess you think Tesla is the self-driving market leader, too. Okay.
I don’t even use it. But in terms of funding, it’s in the top 5, according to Crunchbase data [0].
[0] https://news.crunchbase.com/ai/startup-billion-dollar-fundra...
> But in terms of funding, it’s in the top 5.
WeWork had more funding than xAI.
Not saying xAI will die, but you can’t look at funding.
Hard to take comments like this seriously when you can’t even be bothered to be associated with it from your primary account.
Obviously to prevent proliferation of dual-use technologies to potentially adversarial actors. The same intent behind restricting high-fidelity infrared camera and phased radar equipment.