Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- by righthand
- This is a well-articulated post but we could address this in a couple of sentences: regulation for protecting people comes from grassroots campaigns by the people. Regulation for capturing the industry comes from industry lobbying. Is Dario the people or the industry? Is there a single person in this world so stupidly naive as to believe that Dario is just looking out for the people when he says that open-weight models must be banned and that only Anthropic should control frontier LLMs?
- man why is this even flagged?by donsupreme
- Related discussion on post in question:
On A.I. regulation and messaging
- The open models are now good enough. The rest of the world needn’t concern itself with the petty dramas of the colonies any longer
- The US controls most of the capital in the industry, including most of the compute used for training. And also, NVIDIA, arguably the most important actor in the industryby dgellow
- Good enough for what?
The labs are betting on there being more applications for stronger models and that many existing applications will continue to need stronger models to keep up with competitors.
- You know is peculiar how discourse evolves on the Internet.
So many folks have been posting Twitter links from this exchange in separate threads here on HN and arguing about them.
I’m sure these threads are being argued about in other forums and social media platforms.
Sometimes you get the feeling that there is one social media extravaganza going on and all the different forums and social media platforms are just conduits to access the extravanangza.
See how TikTokers make their videos and upload identical copies to their TikTok accounts and then also YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, etc etc
Each platform the same just a different lens into the same cacophony
by ViktorRay - People just want to see their flavour of free speech. Plus there is a strong need to virtue-signal.by dude250711
- People discussing stuff in their communities rather then all of us at the same place is nothing peculiar. It used to be done in person, now it is done online.
> See how TikTokers make their videos and upload identical copies to their TikTok accounts and then also YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, etc etc
That is not "extravaganza". That is how competition looks like. It is kind of forgotten since "competition is for loosers" per our wanna be future feudal lords.
by watwut - David Sacks, the man who has multiple conflicting investments while serving in public office?
Seriously how is twitter still a thing.
by bix6 - > As Zuckerberg notes, concentrating power in the hands of an enlightened few has rarely produced the promised results; the practitioners turn out to be less enlightened in practice than in self-conception.
Pot, meet kettle.
by mrhottakes - “ I have repeatedly argued for strong antitrust enforcement to keep industries competitive, especially Big Tech.”
Has David Sacks actually called for stronger antitrust enforcement? Not that he has total control of this administration but it’s gone pretty hard in the other direction in my observation.
by mikgp - David sacks and the rest of the all in venture bro crew collectively lost their shit when lina khan actually enforced our anti trust laws for the first time in decades. That is a huge reason why silicon valley elites switched to magaby nnmg
- He would not have been attached the current administration if he had even hinted at so. Quite the opposite.by mlnj
- The only thing David Sacks ever calls for is more money and power for David Sacks.by mrhottakes
- > “I have repeatedly argued for strong antitrust enforcement to keep industries competitive, especially Big Tech.”
> Has David Sacks actually called for stronger antitrust enforcement? Not that he has total control of this administration but it’s gone pretty hard in the other direction in my observation.
Not commentating on this particular case (because I don't know the details), but it's amazing how many public statements from tech people are just absolute shameless lies. The public/PR statement is just whatever it is they think you want to hear, but behind the scenes they just do whatever they want. There's no connection between the two, except by coincidence.
by palmotea - > Dario acknowledges that AI is structurally centralizing but attributes this mainly to chips and scaling laws.
Is that a correct idea to acknowledge in 2026, with the proliferation of open-weight models hitting an inflection point, and Nvidia and AMD both putting significant effort into developing local AI products at price points already accessible to prosumers and SMBs?
Is this "acknowledgement" actually a rear-guard attempt to protect centralization on the software side of the AI market via the exact sort of regulatory capture that he's hand-waving away, so he can use it to artificially prop up his inferencing-as-a-service business model?
by Gormo - I agree with Sacks.
Amodei's conception of regulation is difficult to distinguish economically from some form of regulatory capture, protectionism, or rent-seeking in the face of limited infrastructure and resources and intense regional competition.
It doesn't make sense given that the US does not have a monopoly on AI development and regulation would put US companies at a disadvantage, especially given the US's hegemony is debatably potentially over. The idea of US using regulatory sway requires that the US can influence the entire ecosystem, from access to capital to semiconductor development to allied export controls. That world is probably over.
The US has lost its grip on all of these threads and China has picked up the slack. This is like trying to put the genie back in the bottle with one hand tied behind your back.