The government will just claim that unsanctioned models have the potential to deliberately introduce security vulnerabilities when working on IT projects (e.g. be trained to strongly yet covertly favoring introducing compromised dependencies when you are not looking).

Then laws will be made to forbid organizations who use models other than those from the sanctioned labs to participate in critical projects on national security concerns.

All of a sudden, no business would risk using open source models anymore.

The battle was between Oracle and MySQL (and PostgreSQL won).

That until it becomes illegal to have or use open source models without approval and licence from government. With more talks about on device scanning, this could be easily plumbed in. If OS detects there is open source model, it could brick your device or alert authorities. Then next step will be limiting what operating system you can install. Likely only those where you cannot remove client side scanning.

> and their profit margins along with It

lol that’s a good one.

related:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/brief-history-book-bu...

This makes no sense, it only will embolden any attempts by china and other countries to move away from depending on US AI tech

The irony to have the EU criticised for regulation on one side but complete government control of access on the other.

David Sacks has been silent for a long time.. So much for being the big “AI czar”. Does he have any influence left in the government?

"We believe in broad access, and we plan to make GPT‑5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna generally available in the coming weeks. As part of our ongoing engagement with the U.S. government, we previewed our plans and the models’ capabilities ahead of today’s launch. At their request, we are starting with a limited preview for a small group of trusted partners whose participation has been shared with the government, before releasing more broadly. During this preview, we will continue testing and coordinating closely with partners as we work toward broader availability. We don’t believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default. It keeps the best tools from users, developers, enterprises, cyber defenders, and global partners who need them. We are taking this short-term step because we believe it is the strongest path to broader availability in the coming weeks, while we work with the Administration to develop the cyber Executive Order framework and a repeatable process for future model releases."

This amount of courting the current administration is pretty scary imo.

OpenAI/Anthropic are begging to be restricted because it's great marketing and it creates a precedent to permanently ban open weights models. The problem is nobody in government believes in/cares about commodity pricing of truly open AI and how much it could help the world economy and prosperity.

Companies like Microsoft have been asleep at the wheel in terms of security for decades and now there's a model that can identify where they've been careless. That's not a "nuclear bomb level threat" or whatever Anthropic wants to call it, it's reckless carelessness by the existing companies.

Great so we just need to wait for China to catch up I guess

This is a real head scratcher. Unless this is a very short term action it seems to have only downsides for everybody:

- people pay much more for US models than Chinese models because right now they're the best. Once they're no longer the best (since you don't get access to them) why would anyone pay several times as much for the same result?

- once you get a high amount of tokens flowing into China instead of US companies, they will train on those chats and their rate of improvement will only accelerate, making US models even less attractive over time

- the sky-high IPO are dead in the water, since their story of "we will replace a good chunk of all knowledge work in the world, capturing a few % of total global spend relating to it" turns into "we will make a bunch of money out of a few dozen S&P 500 paying for the best, and some pocket money out of whoever uses our overpriced models that are as good as Chinese models" - far less money overall. Losing access to untold billions of investor money certainly won't improve performance for the US labs

- all the non-US people start asking themselves why they're funneling money to US corporations who barely share any of the secret sauce compared to Chinese corporations who share plenty when it comes to LLM, including the models themselves (at least for now)

- Chinese models have significantly less guardrails, making for better end-user experience

- there is a small but non-zero chance Euros get off their asses and invest into AI, making something halfway decent and further fracturing the market which cuts into US profits

So what's the benefit here? I thought the Mythos situation was the current admin taking revenge on Antrophic for not kissing the ring, or simply looking for a bribe, but no matter which way I look at it it's a self-own. The only way this would make any sense is if AGI is imminent, which I don't think even the boosters are arguing at this point.

Theoretically US could outlaw Chinese models, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to accomplish as the rest of the world certainly won't, especially as long as they release open weights models that you can run without phoning home.

Do we know how much choice OpenAI has with the arrangement? They call it a "request", but could they have been ordered directly?

Last year Tim Cook gifted Trump a custom, one-of-a-kind glass plaque with a 24-karat gold base [1]. (Cook needed a policy outcome that would protect Apple's supply chain costs and avoid a costly 100% tariff on certain chips and components.)

You may have to make similar offerings if you want to use the latest version of ChatGPT.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0O9QhwIkj5w

It's pretty easy to solve. You just keep pushing new versions of Opus 4.8....

So them banning Fable for only non-Americans is what we non-Americans should expect to be the norm going forward? Way to build even more resentment abroad.

I'm very pro-west, but at this point okay, I guess the rest of us have to side with China, not because we remotely like it, but because they don't try to be quite so antagonistic to us in everything they do.

Wowzers. It's been some time since export controls were something i'd see in software. Interesting times.

Damn. This is the second post today that just disappeared from the top of the landing page. This is 100% manipulated.

Local AI and open-weight models are becoming something to no longer ignore. I've started a community around this @tokenstead on X and tokenstead.ai YouTube and much more coming. DGX Spark on route, RTX 5090s and much more exciting builds. We need to have AI sovereignty!

"government needs to step in and regulate ai"

"wait, not like that"

It seems like sota ai will go the way of reserve antibiotics

Will these ad hoc decisions by the U.S. government, without law or clear process, not hurt the coming IPO's of Anthropic and OpenAI?

Sooo both OpenAI and Anthropic going bankrupt soon?

If they can’t freely sell access to their models and Chinese models catch up to Opus 4.8/GPT 5.5 in 6-8 months - then why pay OAI/Anthropic at all?

How is this not a First Amendment issue?!

I’m generally prefer republicans, but not in favor of this!

Does this mean that the government will compensate OpenAI for lost revenue?

U.S. government will decide who will feed the chinese competition.

I can't tell if this is bad for the big labs, or good because it means they now have an excuse for not showing meaningful progress in the lead ups to their IPOs.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-administration-asks-o...

Can't the AI companies spare a small investment in Trump coin to ease the process?

Why do I get the feeling the administration is doing this to buy a position in the AI companies before they go public.

If non US citizens shouldn't have the models - wouldn't that cause both Anthropic and OAI to fire non-citizens?

it kinda seems like openai is doing this willinglyy and not challenging it. if they weren't doing this willingly, how would this be legal? has congress already passed a law giving the executive branch regulatory powers like this?

Open source is looking great right now

Non-paywall: https://archive.is/PCQQl

All these dorks think they're Iron Man. Guess they're on the Civil War stage of his character development.

huge momentum for local and open-source LLMs

Will be hard to become profitable if you have a limited customer base

Great now we're priced out of getting good enough hardware to run the top open sourced models locally.

It's a matter of time before the Chinese models are banned.

> We don’t believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default.

Really glad to see some reasonably prominent pushback against this government overreach.

The information has been reporting that the government wants to individually approve which companies get access and when.

Imagine the wonderful opportunities for corruption and influence peddling, not to mention, excluding any companies that don’t support Trump

There's a huge difference between 'pro market' and 'buddies with some big businesses' and this administration is making it very clear, at least to those who would see.

https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/47857230937/luigi-zi...

That is why running local models is going to be very important...This crooked administration doing crooked things. Nothing to see here.

This post isn't even on the landing page for some reason.

Saltman prbly had to beg and bribe for this. imagine fable getting banned and this just going though. That would be like accepting defeat.

Ah, so the specter of Biden doing it was bad, but this administration putting into practice is great.

There is an assumption that everyone is making here - that China will not do the same. It is entirely possible, that China restricts their frontier models - as and when they are developed - to only Chinese citizens. And India follows along.

IMO AI is different from everything else. It is a weapon as potent as nuclear. It is only natural that it be treated as one.

Those taking issue with the clear deference to the current U.S. administration would seemingly prefer it be the exact same degree of preemptive compliance and collaboration, just done behind closed doors as it was with the Biden administration. The sausage is apparently far more palatable when you only find out about the overreach, pressuring, implied threats, and censorship years later in House Judiciary Committees. Or even better if you don’t through use of NSL gag orders or implied threat of lawfare!

Everything is a rich man's trick.

This is rich social classes claiming more for themselves.

Someone convince me otherwise?

Good luck with those 1T USD valuations when your total addressable market now shrunk from 8 Billion people to just 300 million.

So, where's the export restrictions?

It's ok I will wait for the Chinese resellers :)

Thank you Chinese Robin Hoods

Just seems like gatekeeping for graft and favors / corruption.

Of course the idiots in Washington have bought the hype - hook, line, and sinker.

Something about this makes my stomach churn… This is not a good sign for the future of the USA.

I hope the country doesn’t become the new USSR.

One more wake up call for anyone outside USA, especially Europe. AI will be weaponized, on the battle ground too, but the bigger battle will be fought in the industry competition. Those who have access to state of the art models will have advantage over those who does not.

Hopefully open-weight models will catch up, hopefully we, as the people, engineers will find the way to maintain those open-weight models on pair with the closed ones.

I try to be optimistic, as we won some battles, against all odds, Linux is flourishing, open source solutions are mainstream.

Keep your **** models to yourselves.... the world really has moved on to open models which can give you good enough results at a fraction of the cost and zero BS licensing.

We’ve seen more examples recently. TikTok, wireless routers, polestar cars…

A real headscratcher isn't it? And from a government that is supposedly priding itself on small government. How should companies navigate this? What's the framework they should operate within?

Munitions exporting. I fondly remember the PGP feasco. I spent years using PGP to encrypt my emails to several people who refused to use email without it. Good times.

Competent government wouldn't do this either... ...also why I think it won't last.

Doubtful it'd hold in court; this admin would have to show that it's not corruption, because we'd all assume otherwise.

Unprecedented? This is very much precedented and has been the end goal when you disallow regulations and public input when it comes to technology proliferation. When was the last time the public had an ability to direct technology in the US?

This is the result of private interests working authoritarian governments (hint, it rhymes with classism).

release the weights! freedom of speech!

Without access to leading models, I think open source LLM development will also slow down. I'm not sure which portion of their success right now is due to RLAF and distillation but it's certainly not zero.

The US is turning into China. LOL!

Censorship. Surveillance. (Hi, PLTR!)

In a scenario where some breakthrough in fusion energy will be discovered I envision:

- instant, total world war if it's not coming from USA

- let's finish all oil's reserve first otherwise

It seems like this was entirely caused by Dario (and Anthropic as a whole)? When you run around marketing something as a "super weapon", the government may actually take you seriously?

We obviously can't A/B test this... but if Dario hadn't been doing that, would any of this been happening right now?

Thanks to the US government for helping kill Anthropic and OpenAI by preventing them from recouping any R&D money from new models. Doing god's work.

never would I have thought China would win that easily

GLM on LLM Asics is going to be amazing, US hosted or otherwise

What a party pooper the current US government is... I'm not excited right now at all, while normally a new GPT release would be so much fun to test out.

This will be the end of the US's short-lived AI supremacy. OpenAI and Anthropic are already wildly unprofitable, cutting off the world-wide income stream is just fucking bad business.

"...and the land of the free!"

+1 point to China!

In all seriousness, I can’t believe the AI firms are abiding by this peacefully. If I truly loved my company, and I felt we were on the bleeding edge of incredible, life changing products, why would I allow my company to be set up for failure by remaining somewhere that clearly wants control over the sovereignty.

The US gov sees these AI companies as bartering power, not as innovation. Wouldn’t you as a parent always want what’s best for your child, not for yourself?

It also feels like they can’t just relocate out of the country, as the administration will surely sanction anyone from business within the country again. These firms are so over inflated with evaluations and opex, they’ve dug themselves into a corner.

This is not to say regulation does not exist in any other country, but it’s clear now after what’s happening at Anthropic + OAI that the US gov has taken these companies hostage.

This is only further playing into the hands of open source and the outside models; the US gov is going to be to blame for when they all lose the race to low cost/free.

Wait, what happened to wanting a safety first mindset and government regulation of big tech?

Again, if you think we the people are getting access to AGI you're a fool.

These models aren't even that smart and they are already trying to control them and lock them down to a handful of people.

Then these executive and VC wonder why people hate AI and are against them.

Because the future is heading toward intelligence for the rich and you stuck with whatever model they want you to have.

The next step is banning open source models.

The future is not looking so bright if these models are already going locked down to whoever the government what's to have them.

This is no different than the government banning books because they don't want you to learn.

This will be exactly as effective as the BBC's efforts to ensure only UK taxpayers are allowed to stream Doctor Who from BBC servers on Christmas morning.

This is for the preview period, but it's not a good sign. Opus 4.8 may be the last frontier model available to the masses...

Related:

OpenAI Leans Toward Waiting Until Next Year for IPO

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48678873

Trump admin just banned individual users like me from using it, indefinitely, under vague authority. When did we become such a nanny state?

So, that DeepSeek thing, you are saying it's not that bad?

Wow.. Okay so it's official now that the playbook is "we will try to prevent anyone who we don't like to use advanced tech".

I understand if its military hardware and software, that's the property of the US government however this is the property of a private company.. Now seemingly being commandeered and issued at the will of the government, sounds very Russian/Chinese to me.

Is there a precedent for this before in a democratic country ?

> We don’t believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default. It keeps the best tools from users, developers, enterprises, cyber defenders, and global partners who need them.

My brother in Christ, then why did you (and your competitors) spend years telling the government you needed them to tie your hands behind your back? Did you really think they'd just give you a crown that says "Gatekeeper Of All Neural Networks"?

Please avoid reddit posts of screenshots of articles OP.

[dupe] Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48678789

Honestly, are people not getting what's going on? The US is turning into a personalist regime, there is no "government" per-se, there's a dude. There are no 'rules' there's only the dude's opinion and you'll do whatever he feels like today.

The way you know this is true is to imagine The Others in power. Sacks used to scream about government interference, but now that he's running (this part of) the government, obviously things are different.

The only constant is that David Sacks (& co) always believed he should have all the power.

2 years and 6 months is a long time, at least in the AI space.

> Anthropic and OpenAI could fight it in court.

They did exactly that with supply chain risk designation, and look what it got them: the administration simply found another more effective way to punish them.

It’s all speculation but I think he would have no qualms about tanking the only industry keeping the stock market growing. But given Kushner’s OAI investments, Trump stands to benefit personally from not tanking the industry.

“Wouldn’t it be a shame if we export controlled all of your models and revoked the visas and green cards of all of your non US researchers. You should really reconsider challenging our orders in court. Also remember you have 16% public support and if the president endorsed it a national data center moratorium would pass with bipartisan majorities.”

If you're arguing they should have believed the AI doomer hype years ago and developed decades of regs at the drop of a hat, sure, i guess you can. That's a topic for historians.

But, the question today is what to do today, a rolling deployment seems pretty hard to argue with.

It has already become the norm

That was always the playbook

> Is there a precedent for this before in a democratic country ?

I'd argue US is not very democratic country given how many of what govt does goes against people's wishes. Same as UK

Anthropic just needs to donate millions of dollars to a “MAGA Inc” like Greg Brockman did and they’ll get regulated properly from now on.

It’s a perfectly good system for government regulation.

And enforcement cannot work if you’ve captured all three estates.

But your government is constantly acting illegally. Isn't it time for Americans to... do something? It's clear that your legal framework isn't working.

The ideas are debatable but generally correct. The EU's problem is that regulation stops at the ideas, and it is intentionally designed so to be impossible to ensure compliance in advance. So the regulation is really after the fact and a subjective judgment by regulators. So there's tons of risk even if you genuinely believe you're complying with the prescribed intents.

My opinion on EU regulation would flip 180 degrees if they offered any kind of pre-clearance where you could propose a product, feature, or policy and be told in advance if it meets their subjective requirements.

IMO you can have clear, specific requirements in advance, or you can have a body that provides interpretations of spirit-of-the-rules regulations in advance. Having neither is a problem.

(yes, I'm aware of the argument that if you tell companies what's legal in advance they will just do the bare minimum or find loopholes... I don't find that to be a legit rule of law system)

With the way things are, having to disclose training data will basically make it impossible for an EU AI to compete.

I don't see how, other than that it will make it harder for chinese labs to train their models on OpenAI/Anthropics' (which honestly I can't get that worked up about plagiarism in this space considering where they got their data from..)

Or significantly increase their market share outside the US and give them some breathing space to catch up with the currently available closed models

I think it's going to be like DMCA, like hard to convict you for having the files but distributing them might be illegal

But in this model, there is no regulator, there is just the Whitehouse deciding who gets to use the AI. Nobody has “captured” Trump here.

Maybe include some election guides for poor, misguided Americans that would hurt themselves by not voting for God President Donald Trump I as well?

It's protecting people from themselves, so basically like the safeguards already included in the models.

Unless it thought you are trying to distill it, then it would silently sabotage you.

Checks from the major model providers will already be on their way to Congress, hand-delivered by the highest-paid lobbyists on K Street. Look for them to wake from their ent-like slumber tout suite to pass legislation that the courts can use for guidance.

What Trump is doing at the moment is, as usual, only a distraction.

for america yeah. for the world the only real risks are american, chinese or corporate dominance. thats why its important to support open models wherever they come from and smaller players like mistral in france or black forest in germany.

What knowledge or skills do you have to be hating on the certification process for airplanes?

It’s just getting ridiculous at this point. There are plenty of industries regulated and certified by national or international agencies. And no they don’t get to do what they want.

Or provide them.

Uhhh no. The White House (and other government agencies) have a well-established right to communicate with private entities. They do not have a right to coerce them. There's a blurry line between these, but not in Facebook's case, as they don't even claim they were coerced. Same with Twitter, whose lawyers testified under oath that Twitter's content moderation decisions were not coerced whatsoever.

Zuckerberg has specifically said they received requests from the government, they complied with some (as they have a right to do), declined others (as they have a right to do), none of which was under duress, and the response to non-compliance was expressions of "frustration" by the government officials.

By contrast, OpenAI's largest competitor just got kneecapped by the US government because they insisted that the US government comply with the contract terms the US government signed to literally months previously.

All you're saying is that the government under Biden talked to Meta.

> I felt like it was about 10X better at "pretty" but straightforward 1 shot'ish type tasks. Not so different for complex and specific tasks in real code-bases.

What metric are you using for "better" here? If I've got a straightforward task GPT 5.5 is going to 1shot it anyway.

How is Musk/xai even in the conversation here? It’s a lowly, also-ran AI company, not a “frontier model” company.

Pretty pointless question to ask someone posting here under their own name

Meanwhile, I draw a three day suspension every time I post the word "guillotine" on Reddit.

s/50/250

You don't need a blacklist.

Maintaining a blessed whitelist is the way to go.

In the not so distant future, all your coding edits (for work anyway) will be through centralized gateways. Think remote desktop environment where pasting from the client is disabled.

Pretty sure Chinese police will not cooperate with a US indictment

I don't think a critical mass of them will oppose the US. The most likely equilibrium is Chinese models being shut out of any US-aligned markets (i.e. Europe at the very least, also East Asia, etc.). Probably India, Russia, Brazil etc. will resist such pressure, but they are protectionist and resilient to trade wards anyway, at the expense of their own welfare of course.

> if NASDAQ dropped 20%

If NASDAQ dropped 20%, it would have returned to the level last seen three months ago, in March 2026. Calling that "in ruins" would be a pretty big stretch.

To pick one example, OP talked about meituan like they haven't seen multiple meituan delivery riders per block every time they take a walk. It strains credibility. Why do they even know the name if they don't see that? Its not like they operate in America.

That is about investor confidence, not company performance. The companies are for the most part still making boatloads of money, just not as much as investors naively expected to get from taking over a market with 1.4B people.

And even if foreign investors are more cautious now, there is plenty of money trapped by capital controls, so that it doesn't look like new tech companies have trouble raising capital anyway.

Electing a bunch of spineless hacks to Congress removed the guardrails. They had one job.

> On some level

The appropriate level would be regulation though? Like I just don't get how we can argue that arbitrarily throttling companies is ok.

Bank should be more secure, if a random person with an LLM can hack them, they should have paid 100 random blue teamers with LLMs to hack them first to get more secure. Not AI's fault.

Robbing banks is already illegal

>but don't lose sight of what LLMs can do off the leash.

there is no such thing as an LLM "off the leash", it's not a dog, and even if it was a dog the person responsible is the owner. What is this bizarre attitude to a piece of software that makes people think existing laws don't apply?

If your LLM agent hacks a bank, you have hacked a bank, you will go to prison and that's entirely sufficient. People have been hacking banks for decades now, it didn't require the government to regulate C compilers and Emacs.

> Anthropic begging for some guidance

Anthropic was "begging" to make it harder for competing companies to be founded.

They're not regulating though – they're arbitrarily blocking releases based on no clear criteria. The EU may be legalistic and rules-based, but I'd take that over capricious and arbitrary.

You can’t be serious because “When the need arises” means when your company does not lavish praise on the current administration.

Regulating when the need arises requires also compensating the people who get hurt in the meantime.

It sounds nice but you end up with entrenched special interests that later oppose all regulation regardless of the consequences. We have pesticides you wouldn't want anywhere near your children casually used to control weeds on kid's playgrounds, insanely huge trucks that kill hundred each year, the food is garbage...the list is long and tiresome. Trust me brother, if I could live in the EU, I would.

If they were real about risk, they would have to block a lot more models.

> regulate when the need for it arises

I agree. But that need has absolutely arisen. The US government is not exactly the best steward for this kind of thing, but some model other than "race each other as fast as we can" is desperately needed here.

Let's plan a fire fighter division only once we are actually having some buildings in the city burning down. That people who fear that ridiculous perfectly controlled fire in chemines are ridiculous.

The AI companies were all asking for the government to regulate them. The government is doing what the companies asked for them to do.

You can argue that, by government, they meant some legislative process, but I'd argue that regulation via bad executive order is much better than regulation via bad legislation because the former is tractable. I say this as an EO minimalist.

What change have they achieved?

I'm not going to defend the administration on most things, but your characterization isn't entirely fair. The record seems to suggest that the administration deferred to Amazon and the NSA, which seems sensible.

Perhaps you can fault them with not coming up with an objective framework earlier, but that's a different criticism.

The common denominator between "GPT-2 is too dangerous to release" and Anthropic is Dario.

They aren't the current target for right wing hated.

The geopolitical angle of all of this is interesting. Will countries, especially bigger players really just hope they'll get access to something so crucial from the US or China?

Probably the EU could pool together funds to create something competitive as being on the mercy of someone else isn't a pleasant place to be.

And I wouldn't get so used to the open models. Eventually, if they get good enough, the access to them will also get restricted.

> If it's the same equivalent then my issue is just that, it feels like trying to restrict the useage of RSA because it could be used by bad actors.

RSA was practically impossible to control (an implementation is what, 100 lines in any language?) and the global benefits outweighed the cost and futility associated with restrictions.

AI laboratories with hundreds of billions of dollars in funding aren't cropping up in every country in the world, and their products and services are easily controlled and not easily replicated.

They're trying to build case law for this with VPNs. They'll likely succeeed.

The Supreme Court is captured by the Epstein class, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I would not be so confident, though I certainly hope!

I mean, I'm not sure that's the correct read on this.

If you want an Opus class model, it makes sense that you would train on what Opus outputs. But, if you want something better than Opus, training on the same data that Opus was trained on with the same architecture will only result in an Opus class model. Then, if your dataset also contains Opus outputs, many of which are wrong, then it makes sense that the model would have reduced performance.

All this to say that I don't think there's such a thing as a "Model Collapse," but there likely is a "Model Stagnation."

I thought it was better than that? It matches 4.8 in many evals and even beat Fable in Design Arena by a very healthy margin.

IYKYK :)

> You wrongly assumed I implied these firms relocate to China. We are all aware of how China operates and controls its assets.

Then why write "+1 point to China!" and not "+1 point to the UK, France and Germany"?

> Deepmind in the UK, Mistral in France, DeepL in Germany - the governments don’t seem to be forcing employees to get their deploys approved by a government official.

The UK, France and Germany all have their own export controls rules, so if a company in these countries comes up with a model that those governments deem to be of significant enough importance, they also have the means to exercise greater control over them as well.

The latest models from Anthropic and OpenAI are said to be the most advanced in the world. Agree or disagree, like it or not, the powers that be in the US determined that there is sufficient justification to control their export. Under long-standing and perfectly legal export control laws, the US has the ability to issue such orders.

In the case of Anthropic, the company chose to reverse providing public access to Fable because it said it could not comply with the requirement that non-US nationals (even those residing in the US) be restricted from accessing Fable.

> It’s slowing the entire country down at a very critical sink or swim inflection point in this tech.

You might or might not be right, but I think many people would argue that "move fast and break things" is risky when it comes to AI. I can't say that the current administration is genuinely concerned about the broad societal impacts of AI but if the effect of their brand of greater oversight is that companies like Anthropic and OpenAI have to slow down, it might not be a bad thing for humanity.

Whether they’re over-valued and over-resourced is a big question. I think that will be answered when eventual price hikes happen and people shift which AI they use and/or what they use it for.

We’re still in the “5$ airport Ubers thanks to VC money” era of AI

>I have no idea how this stuff should be regulated.

That's why we have a system where representatives of districts do research, debate, and hash out those details while the public who votes for them is able to contact them.

>I do know that any sort of comprehensive legislation at this point in time has a much higher chance of being a bottleneck to innovation than an easily reversible white house directive.

That's odd to say after admitting you don't know what the regulation would look like. Especially after seeing the "easily reversible" tariffs from this White House, which changed erratically and had exceptions for people who sweet talked the president.

If you don’t see a difference between a well thought out & debated policy stance and arbitrary enforcement without justification I’m not sure what to say.

> can we make sure these models aren't dangerous

They can’t, though. The models might or might not be too dangerous but the people running the US federal government are too incompetent and/or corrupt to do anything useful about that.

Anthropic submitted a long, thoughtful framework proposal, which everyone seems to be ignoring in favor of hot takes like “they asked for this!” No they didn’t, not at all.

That's not what Trump's doing. He's just trying to pick and choose winners so that he can reward his allies and punish his enemies.

They get the dual-use scraps or whatever China is hawking.

Being told "no" is never fun, but the regulations are not hard to comply with (despite what Anthropic might have you believe.)

> I can't imagine US partners will abide this for long.

What are they going to do? Start their own Anthropic? Go for it. Why is every other country in the world entitled to American technology by default?

Citizens were and are free to use the technology (cryptography and every other export-controlled item); your "power bill is suspicious, go to jail" FUD doesn't really track with history.

> Any company providing the models will be deemed a threat to national security.

Any company providing specifically-controlled models to foreigners would hypothetically be prosecuted.

Because the models don't necessarily need to be hosted on hugging face. You can create a Model Card repository containing your README and from there you include instructions or a custom script in your repository that allows authenticated users to download the model.

> Doesn't sound dystopian enough without a second compelled entity?

This is the second snarky question you've made today, the other in relation to the export limit.

> Is this just upsetting because it's a product you want to enjoy?

Both are assumptions you are making and don't provide much in the way of constructive conversation, if I'm wrong about something it's alright to just point it out.

"Freedom of commerce" doesn't mean "unchecked globalism" - there are plenty of dual-use items that only friendly countries or citizens can obtain (and within those categories, there aren't any further restrictions besides "don't share.")

The UK is a lot more compassionate about people’s wishes, it’s not nearly as bureaucratic and polarizing “democracy” as the US. Laws in the UK are passed quickly, and feedback is always considered. Whether you agree or not on the regulation is another discussion.

I don't want anyone being punished. I want everyone to stop acting stupid.

I would've much preferred if Dario hadn't run his mouth so much.

You do see how that is not going to work, right?

Yep, we all can play tit for tat.

Needlessly patriotic and confrontational.

I'm referring to OpenAI and Antropic - would they be successfull with ~40-50% of their potential market?

And iPhones, not really. But you can bet your ass that every business purchasing software in Europe is at least considering the geopolitical risks of buying American, and thinking of alternatives. Doesn't mean they'll all stop buying American software any time soon, but the shift has already started.

I'm sure cooky old Martin Niemöller just dreamt that poem up out of nowhere and his time spent in in Dachau had nothing to do with it.