Comment by pixel_popping | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pixel_popping | Hacker News Reader

Of course it isn't about that, what we see online in the "news" is completely irrelevant with reality in most cases, it's exhausting to see people parroting what giant corps & gov are saying as if it's not extremely well crafted and plain false or deceptive most of the time. It's not even about politic left or right, both sides are acting completely dumb about it, look at Google trends, people are literally being "switched" topic at scale just because a news is saying something, it's absurd. Reading a news shouldn't affect your behavior for the coming months if you have common sense.

This TechCrunch (https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/15/the-us-governments-anthrop...) article is a typical example of something to completely ignore and trash, the picture is the US president doing a weird face which means it's not even here to inform you, it's clearly rage-bait, not professional and incompetent obviously, I'm not from the US and when I see this, it makes me feel that those journalists are really pathetic and anyone following journalists that do so probably don't have much discernment in life.

My personal opinion is that it makes sense so the US remain a superpower by forcing tech businesses and research to move/re-incorporate to the US so practically anything "new" will always be US Made. If we assume that better models means more revenues for any company in the future, then US will always have an edge if they lock everything down, but it's a risky bet.

It is crazy to debate whether this is 'left or right' when the right holds all 3 branches of government

It's the same news that lied under Biden and Obama too. This predates the appointment of Bari Weiss as Ministry of Truth auditor.

Nuance like "one party holds all branches of government" really gets in the way of BSABSVR

> it makes sense so the US remain a superpower by forcing tech businesses and research to move/re-incorporate to the US so practically anything "new" will always be US Made.

It's difficult to see how this motivates AI companies to relocate to the US, since US companies are the ones subject to bans.

That's just a temporary thing, what might happen is that only US companies will be able to subscribe to US models from Anthropic, OpenAI and so-on, this is what's relevant, the users of AI and its implications aren't Anthropic, it's the companies running Anthropic models, and if a company based outside of the US can't have the latest model, then they'll always lag behind.

What makes it a risky bet?

risk

Because it would really increase the interest for Chinese/EU models and would even create real incentives to build models outside of the US.

Perhaps, but it seems unlikely to me that China will release anything substantial to the general global public either, because they, like the US, would want to keep that capability in-country for national security reasons.

I suspect that this is true for any nation with sufficient AI capabilities.

The dual risks of either a) accidentally pushing a foreign competitor into the lead and losing dominant status, or b) pushing the underlying companies hard enough that they decide to relocate.

a) is specifically the risk that the export controls push companies in other countries to prefer non-US models due to the lowered risk of getting cut off from a model. The increase in revenue for non-US AI providers combined with the drop in revenue for US AI providers allows non-US providers to double down on training and reach parity or exceed US SOTA models.

b) is sort of self-explanatory. Same model as above, but when the US AI providers start seeing the revenue drop they decide to relocate internationally instead. The US would probably try to stop that, no idea how successful they would be.

> a) accidentally pushing a foreign competitor into the lead and losing dominant status

But then the foreign competitor would stop the proliferation of their model and we would just go back and forth - American companies could "release" their model and after time gain the advantage back using the same tactics that the foreign competitor used.

> b) pushing the underlying companies hard enough that they decide to relocate.

This sounds like a reasonable risk to identify, but I would just say that it's not super clear-cut where you would relocate to.

The assumptions are that

* "better models" will remain so signficantly more profitable for firms that have access to them that that they're effectively a "must have" for big orgs, rather than a grossly overpriced marginal gain

* said better models will only be attainable by orgs in US jurisdiction, rather than by foreign alternatives that come to be either independently or through a legally clever "cleaving" of a US-jurisdiction business interest that wants access to an eager international market

If either of those are wrong, restricting Anthropic et al to only sell to the domestic market is effectively a poison pill that makes it much harder for them to meet growth and profitability objectives and could see them lose their market-leading position sooner and more thoroughly than if they retained access to a larger market and had more flexibility.

I could accept those mental gymnastics 4 months ago. But I’m afraid the quagmire in Iran has disillusioned me of any competency the administration might have.

Trump and co are not playing 4D chess. It looks more and more like 1D checkers.

I think a lot of this discussion is just off base. if you assume that the administration is actually trying to govern the country, then yes it seems really keystone cops. but if your point is to use the federal government to accomplish your personal goals (i.e. taking over Venezuela), then things kind snap back into focus a little. but we argue about what the plan is, and how people are going to win elections and all sorts of charmingly naive things. by the time trump leaves he'll have built an international cabal of thieves working at all levels of many governments. he doesn't give a shit about the presidency in and of itself at all. maybe he'll have a stooge for president, maybe not, but he'll have what he wants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com