Hacker News Reader

Comment by worstspotgain | Hacker News Reader

If there was just one quasi-monopoly it would have probably supported the bill. As it is, the market leaders have the competition from each other to worry about. Getting rid of open models wouldn't let them raise their prices much.

View on HN

So if it's not them, who is the hidden commercial interest sponsoring an attack on open source models that cost >$100mm to train? Or does Wiener just genuinely hate megabudget open source? Or is it an accidental attack, aimed at something else? At what?

Like I said, supporters included wary copyright holders and the bottom-market also-rans like Musk. If your model is barely holding up against Llama, what's the point of staying in.

And two of the three godfathers of AI, and all of the AI notkillaboutism crowd.

Actually, wait, if Grok is losing to GPT, why would Musk care about Llama more than Altman? Llama hurts his competitor...

The market in my argument looks like OpenAI ~ Anthropic > Google >>> Meta (~ or maybe >) Musk/Alibaba. The top 3 aren't worried about the down-market stuff. You're free to disagree of course.

He can't compete with Anthropic and OpenAI because their models are much better. Llama is the competitor with the capability closest to Grok.

Claude, SSI, Grok, GPT, Llama, …

Should we crown one the king?

Or perhaps it is better to let them compete?

Perhaps advanced AI capability will motivate advanced AI safety capability?

What are the economic incentives for AI safety?

It's an interesting thought that as AI advances, and becomes more capable of human destruction, programmers, bots and politicians will work together to create safety for a large quantity of humans

"AI defense corps"

You think they want to compete? None of them want to compete. They want to be a protected monopoly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com