zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
This is quite incredible

Could you imagine if MS had convinced the govt back in the day, to require a special license to build an operating system (this blocking Linux and everything open)?

It’s essentially what’s happening now,

Except it is OpenAI instead of MS, and it is AI instead of Linux

AI is the new Linux, they know it, and are trying desperately to stop it from happening

>>nico+DE
I guess @sama took that leaked Google memo to heart ("We have no moat... and neither does OpenAI"). Requiring a license would take out the biggest competitive threats identified in the same memo (Open Source projects) which can result in self-hosted models, which I suppose Altman sees as an existential threat to OpenAI

>>sangno+yS
There is no way to stop self hosted models. The best would be to send gov to data centers, but what if those centers are outside US jurisdiction? Too funny to watch the gov play these losing games.

>>helloj+Ge1
> There is no way to stop self hosted models.

edit: Current models- sure, but they will soon be outdated. I think the idea is to strangle the development of comparable, SoTA models in the future that individuals can self-host; OpenAI certainly won't release their weights, and they'd want the act of releasing weights without a license to be criminalized. If such a law is signed, it would remove the threat of smaller AI companies from disintermediating OpenAI, and individuals from collaborating to engage in any activity that results in publicly available model weights (or even making the recipe itself illegal to distribute)

>>sangno+9g1
I thought we got away from knowledge distribution embargos via 1A during the encryption era.

Even if it passed, I find it hard to believe a bunch of individuals couldn't collaborate via distributed training, which would be almost impossible to prohibit. Anyone could mask their traffic or connect to anon US VPN to circumvent it. The demand will be there to outweigh the risk.