Comment by jwolfe
3 hours ago
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.
3 hours ago
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.
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
How would that slow down the Chinese models, given that the US has no regulatory reach in China?
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!
5 replies →
The US is meeting with China to discuss the threat of AI… May be fine but, i’m wary
Because the end goal is to ban non-US AI companies from being able to do business in the US.
1 reply →
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
[flagged]
1 reply →
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"
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.
4 replies →
> 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.
Particularly, the route they seem to want to go is "safety".
My guess is that Anthropic and OpenAI will push for "safety" regulations which require byzantine testing that, shocker, Anthropic and OpenAI can pass but the chinese models cannot. The route they'll take is import bans and potentially even general bans on products producing or using "unsafe" models.
They'll further likely try and push AI "safety" treaties from the US to other nations to further lock in their lead.
That's why, IMO, we've been seeing so many "OMG, AI will destroy the world and these AI researchers are so scared" articles.
I don't think "putting an upper bound" was OPs phrasing?
That's what pacing the frontier is, and is what the labs are pushing for.
That’s not the argument.
Please elaborate on what the AI labs are specifically requesting and how that results in slowing down Chinese model progress below the frontier.