> We want to help these countries, and in the process, spread democratic AI
I'm reading this in the same voice as Helldivers 2 "managed democracy"
slg · 17h ago
One of the most shocking aspects of this era of history is the number of people who not only end up accidentally resembling or aligning with the bad guys of our satire and dystopian fiction, but how many of them seem to be actively and intentionally pursuing that path. It's the Torment Nexus all the way down.
hayst4ck · 17h ago
That's because there are no consequences for bad behavior, only reward. Game theory dictates that if bad behavior is a winning strategy it will be adopted and propagate until it is the dominant strategy.
The only way it stops becoming a winning strategy is if we provide consequences, but that requires taking personal responsibility for the state of the world, which was a core American value, but doesn't seem to be anymore.
kubb · 9h ago
How do you reconcile the belief that personal responsibility is the solution with game theoretical analysis? It seems contradictory to me.
In order to change the game theoretic outcomes, we‘d need a systemic change that affects the rewards, not a personal attitude change that will become a losing strategy in the game.
Also, do you remember how tobacco companies were invited to the table to discuss whether smoking is bad for you? Were those the days of personal responsibility or was it even before that?
achrono · 3h ago
The point is, the self-policing is needed because there isn't a better policing mechanism outside of oneself for something so fundamental, so much at the frontier.
As the AI leaders themselves admit [1], they are doing what they're doing (i.e. capability-maxxing without caring deeply about actual risks this opens up for humanity) because they can and because the other guy's doing it, so why should they be left behind?
They're asking for some external force to bring the morality that they agree on paper ought to exist. There is a segment among them that are even okay with millions of people dying before the risk of AI gets taken seriously. [2]
If the leaders won’t self-police, is there something else we can do? Or do we just pack up and go home?
whaleofatw2022 · 17h ago
I will dare say, it's a question of what happens to Mario's brother. Jury nullification in that is the best message that could be sent to the populace.
mminer237 · 16h ago
I'm pretty sure giving everyone the belief that they can murder with impunity as long as the victim is undesirable enough would be the absolute worst thing that could happen right now.
slg · 16h ago
One of the dystopian traits I was hinting at in my original comment is the acceptance of mass murder as long as it occurs in the boardroom and nets an extra few cents for the shareholders. I won't defend or justify what "Mario's brother" supposedly did, but he has inflicted much less pain and death on the world than the man he is accused of shooting and I don't really think there is any room to debate that.
zmgsabst · 13h ago
This is precisely why as a law-and-order type, I don’t care about this particular incident.
A rookie gangster shot a high-tier gangster — why is that a me problem? Gang-on-gang violence is a daily occurrence.
wqaatwt · 13h ago
Hypothetically if laws lose their legitimacy because nobody is willing to enforce them (at least some people have that perception) and the political system is designed in such a way as to make any meaningful change near impossible what is there left to do?
somenameforme · 11h ago
And more generally the fundamental reason we agree to operate under laws is because these laws are expected to improve society as a whole. But if those laws instead start enabling and protecting bad behavior then they're doing the exact opposite.
It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the law by quite some time. For the obvious extreme there - slavery was completely legal. Society began to believe that such a thing was no longer fit for society, and consequently acting against it, long before it was outlawed.
s1artibartfast · 1h ago
The way to change this is to build consensus and update the law, not go out and shoot whoever you disagree with.
somenameforme · 1h ago
There are pretty much 0 people who think healthcare insurance providers should be intentionally engaging in delay, deny, defend as a means of maximizing profit. Passing a law against stands essentially 0 chance of happening. If it was passed, it would intentionally have loopholes aplenty buried in a hundred page document that essentially 0 people, including those who wrote it, could understand.
Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
s1artibartfast · 1h ago
Then we need to fix it. Going out and shooting whoever you dont like moves us further from this goal, not closer.
People broadly agree that they dont like the status quo. They dont agree on what would be better. You cant have change without direction and detail.
somenameforme · 21m ago
This isn't the issue. You could get easily get the overwhelming majority of society to agree 'let's criminalize unjustified denials with criminal penalties for the executives of healthcare companies who violate such' and it's simply not going to happen. A handful of corporations' "lobbying" easily trumps the opinion of society.
And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either republican or democrat (with independents being the largest 'party' by far), yet lo and behold like 99.9% of politicians at all levels, high and low, are republican or democrat, with basically no independent representation because the system makes it unreasonably difficult to select an alternative. This is further confounded by an utterly worthless media system that further works to entrench the political establishment, and much more.
wqaatwt · 13h ago
The fact that such behavior might become acceptable (at least amongst a significant section of society) indicates a systemic failure in the socio-economic system. IMHO its more a of symptom. Like labor and anarchist related political violence back in the first Gilded Age back in the late 1800s.
Massively increasing inequality and giving too much political power to corporate robber barons has its costs. If nobody is willing to keep them in check the appearance of some sort of “vigilantism” seems hard to avoid. Not implying that its a good thing or that political violence really ever led to positive change historically..
const_cast · 15h ago
We can already murder with impunity. Just get a few people together, form a company, and you can do whatever. Even crimes against humanity won’t get you in prison, probably. At worst you’ll lose some cash and be demoted to “normal person”.
How many people has UHC killed? I don’t know, it’s really hard to measure. Besides the people killed because they didn’t receive funding for care, there’s also the plethora of practices insurers enforce. Some, maybe most, of those practices are non-optimal, so some subset of people are dying that shouldn’t. Oh well.
Der_Einzige · 16h ago
The purge movies are the relevant ones for this idea…
krapp · 16h ago
That belief is already commonplace, and has been vigorously tested among the sex worker, queer, Black and Native communities and proven correct. I don't see why we should be any more concerned about adding "rich white men" to the pile than we are about any of the other disposable demographics in our society.
pembrook · 10h ago
The fact that rich engineers on hacker news would be flirting with bolshevism as their ideology is just endlessly funny to me. I know it’s just people parroting the emotional “vibe” of their political tribe on any given day, but it’s so ironic.
Beyond the obvious moral decay of cheering on murder at all, and the fact you’re in the privileged class of the richest nation on earth, the idea of targeting the replaceable middle managers of said system is so silly. As if committing random acts of terrorism will somehow force Americans to democratically design a better system? Fear is just another recipe for more ballooning costs (see the TSA).
I guess I find this so amusing because leftists love to fetishize European healthcare without understanding in European countries the government is much more aggressive about denying care than any US insurer. They actually have to keep costs sane for their system to continue existing.
jack_h · 2h ago
> I guess I find this so amusing because leftists love to fetishize European healthcare without understanding in European countries the government is much more aggressive about denying care than any US insurer. They actually have to keep costs sane for their system to continue existing.
All economic systems must contend with resource scarcity. Part of dealing with that is rationing resources which can take the form of higher prices, longer waiting lines, by need, countless other metrics, or some combination of metrics. While the current healthcare system in the US is a byzantine disaster that only a bureaucrat could love, I think far too many think there is a "solution" that somehow leads to a system without resource constraints. This imagined system isn't an economic system though, it's just a utopia.
“The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.” -- Thomas Sowell
justinrubek · 3h ago
I work in software in the US, but I am not rich, nor would I consider myself close to "the privileged class" at all. Yes, I do better than a lot of the people I know. However, this is more that they are in a poor situation. Despite being somewhat frugal and not spending (I've never been on a vacation, I cook at home, I rarely do anything that requires money), I don't have a huge disposable income. If I lost my job, I'd be on the street in less than a year.
The privileged class is significantly higher up than this. I've clawed every bit of everything I have from this world despite many efforts to keep me down.
I don't find your comment genuine at all. You're just trying to be dismissive.
pembrook · 3h ago
Yes, I am indeed trying to be dismissive of people glorifying murder. You caught me red handed.
justinrubek · 1h ago
I don't know what kind of reply I expected. At least I know you never intended to have a real conversation.
lobal · 6h ago
> They actually have to keep costs sane for their system to continue existing.
That is also the case for US insurers. The only difference is if the government denies life saving treatments, people protest. If private insurers do so, people have no recourse.
pembrook · 6h ago
In both situations you have zero recourse. In fact the US Government is less responsive to protest than US businesses are.
US healthcare is one of the most complicated systems of adverse incentives and tangled byzantine public/private spiderwebs ever created. To kill random people involved at 15 layers of abstraction away from the actual root causes thinking that will somehow make it better is probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
jillyboel · 15h ago
The only way out is to hold executives personally responsible for the actions of their companies, and politicians for the results of their policy.
Sam Altman should receive the same treatment as Aaron Swartz. Actually, he should be punished much more severely since the scope of his copyright infringement makes Aaron's seem like child's play.
carterschonwald · 14h ago
Darn, that’s a brutal but quite fair and honest assessment
moralestapia · 15h ago
100%.
"Smaht"[1] people learn to game the system and scam others for momentary benefit.
The worse side that is that we're all guilty of that system, to some degree, even if only by enabling it.
I'm also 100% sure that this is what drives civilizations to the ground.
1. Smaht is a term I use to describe people who think they're smart but they're actually extremely stupid. A lot of smaht people have degrees and diplomas which further fuels their delusion of intelligence.
nicbou · 10h ago
Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale
Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
(@AlexBlechman on twitter)
staticman2 · 5h ago
Sci-Fi Author: Inspired by human atrocities, I present to you my new novel: God Emperor of Dune.
Tech adjacent blogger: Hey guys here me out I love that we're building "starships" but it would also be spiffy if we end democracy and appoint a God Emperor!
Alex_001 · 10h ago
I’ve had that same thought. It’s wild how often real-world decisions echo the exact warnings from sci-fi and satire. Sometimes it feels like people read dystopian fiction not as a cautionary tale, but as a roadmap. The "Torment Nexus" joke stopped being funny a while ago because it keeps getting closer to reality.
pixl97 · 17h ago
>end up accidentally resembling or aligning with the bad guys of our satire and dystopian fiction
Quite often this dystopian 'fiction' is just a biography with the names and place rewritten. A scary number of people are rather anti-human.
roxolotl · 17h ago
I really wish I could know if they are earnestly cosplaying Lex Luther or if they are just deluded. Of course a good Lex Luther cosplay would involve misdirection so it’s basically impossible to know. It doesn’t really matter which one it is because the outcome is similar but it would be very gratifying to know.
orbital-decay · 17h ago
But what are you going to do about it?
easygenes · 12h ago
Super-Earth Defense Ministry Broadcast: Special Bulletin
They used the word "democratic" 8 times in that post. I'm not sure that word means what they think it means.
ASalazarMX · 17h ago
It means "ChatGPT aligned with your government agenda".
snihalani · 17h ago
I think it means they are blinking twice in front of their republic friends. Fortunately, no one is going to save them
krackers · 18h ago
As opposed to those "unaligned" communist open-source models. As a proud freedom-loving citizen of the West you wouldn't want to support those now would you?
"democratic" means "i can pay for anything i want, so i will"
cedws · 2h ago
You will have democracy and you will like it.
echelon · 18h ago
> spread democratic AI
Open weights and code and models? That's the only way to ensure sovereignty.
I think this company is a walking oxymoron.
rytill · 15h ago
Don’t forget the training data!
caseyy · 15h ago
We are far from open training data... training data might even be incriminating.
echelon · 14h ago
100%, though I still feel as though open training data will eventually become a thing. It'll have to be mostly new data, synthetic data, or meticulously curated from public domain / open data.
Synthetic training data sets, even robotically-acquired real world "synthetic" data, can rapidly create training sets. It's just a matter of coordinating these efforts and building high quality data.
I've made a few data sets using Unreal Engine, and I've been wanting to put various objects on turn tables and go out on backpack 3D scan adventures.
Someone will have to pay for it, though.
nicbou · 10h ago
I just finished reading "Careless People" and the tone is shockingly similar to the one Zuckerberg loved to use. It reminds me of that Silicon Valley scene where every startup wants to "make the world a better place".
As someone who is both expected to keep creating information to train AI while being stripped from the fruit of my labour by it, I find it sickening.
mikrl · 13h ago
GPT SAVE ME! stabs USB drive into leg
dzhiurgis · 13h ago
There are countries with more and less freedoms than USA... Operating to that countries standard opens up the market and improves UX.
nicbou · 10h ago
Facebook did that. It ended up exposing a lot of private information to China and supporting a genocide in Myanmar.
Tech companies only care about growth. They only care about anything else insofar as it supports growth.
jwrallie · 18h ago
> It’s clear to everyone now that this kind of infrastructure is going to be the backbone of future economic growth and national development.
Well, OpenAI, I think you are mixing up your own backend for economic growth with everyone’s!
gooob · 16h ago
i'm wondering what's going to happen when AI tells us to stop pursuing "economic growth" and instead seek "health and sustainability"
tedivm · 16h ago
They'll train a new version to fix the problem.
cube00 · 12h ago
The eternal AI hype excuse, the next model will fix that, now we're seeing new models hallucinating more then ever.
caseyy · 15h ago
Just tweak the system prompt until global domi... I mean democracy is achieved. /s
zmgsabst · 13h ago
WEF is already pitching that, so it would represent a pivot to be “on brand” for fascist elites.
Sol- · 18h ago
Comes with a free US government backdoor to all of the foreign citizens' data and AI usage.
Though of course this is already the status quo for all US companies abroad, so you have to give props to OpenAI for spelling it out explicitly: Give up what remains of your digital sovereignty to the US government and you get a small piece of the AGI pie.
_bin_ · 13h ago
The pattern for basically every small nation is "choose of which superpower you wish to be a client." From that patron you get some level of benefit. Not aligning with any either doesn't work (you get attacked) or means you get no benefit (and eventually get pushed into obscurity and instability.)
You can make a lot of complaints about America but we have, looking back on history, been nicer than any other patron. Other good evidence includes the fact that europe is still standing (paying to rebuild) and her extravagant welfare states of the past decades, subsidized largely by American defense spending.
kubb · 9h ago
> The pattern for basically every small nation is "choose of which superpower you wish to be a client."
This is straight up Russian mentality.
> extravagant welfare states of the past decades, subsidized largely by American defense spending
This sounds to me like a US partisan narrative rather than anything else. It’s a nice story, because it strokes the American ego, but I’ve yet seen it backed up by serious analysis. Most likely it’s just a story.
_bin_ · 8m ago
This isn't a russian mentality, this is more of a realpolitik reading of how things work. Don't mistake a positive statement for a normative one.
The fact that the FT is picking this up should tell us something given its typical perspective. There are two big groups of countries in this situation concerned with keeping russia in check: America and the Euros. The former has less of a direct concern but more ability to do something about it; the former have more concerns but less ability. So we settled on a compromise where each country would contribute a proportion of GDP rather than a dollar figure. This is fair-ish; it's still a huge benefit to the euros, but pretty fair. Yet for decades, they have consistently failed to meet their proportional obligations, instead directing those funds to things like "free healthcare".
Other major reasons they can do this include not having debt from having to finance the rebuilding of their continent themselves.
rowanseymour · 2h ago
> This is straight up Russian mentality.
I don't know how you can look at nearly a century of US imperialism in Latin America and the Middle East and conclude that client states is a Russian thing.
delusional · 12h ago
I agree with most of what you said. America has been a great ally, mostly by allowing her allies to flourish independently of herself. The US did whatever she wanted to do, and so did her allies. This was a great benefit to all involved.
> subsidized largely by American defense spending.
This part is in my opinion ahistoric. US wars have not been popular in Europe. We did not want a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, we supported an ally calling for defense from terror. American war machine spending is rooted in her own desire for hard power, not pleas from her allies.
All of this is coming to an end. Not because the US is retracting. I think most of the west would accept a more nationally interested US, but because the US is starting to see her allies as vassals that she should control. She is realigning as a traditional power, like the USSR.
We are not vassals, we are independent nations seeking our own happiness.
tuyguntn · 18h ago
additionally, anytime you oppose US government ideas, data centers in your country gets shutdown.
blibble · 18h ago
> These secure data centers will help support the sovereignty of a country’s data
there is no data sovereignty if there's a US entity at the top
fakedang · 10h ago
I honestly wonder if American companies are so dense that they think foreign governments don't know of the Cloud Act.
globalnode · 16h ago
How can a glorified NLP app be equated with being the backbone of economic development and a path to AGI ? So many people have been fooled by marketing.
Honestly though, we have a much bigger issue with climate change in the medium to long run and it doesn't really matter what our governments and companies do with stats and spyware. If anyone thinks we can stop and deal with the climate when it becomes a bigger problem, just take a look at our track record so far.
(only mentioning climate change to offer perspective)
n_ary · 15h ago
> How can a glorified NLP app be equated with being the backbone of economic development and a path to AGI ? So many people have been fooled by marketing.
Regulators are still figuring out this “AI” and oAI must move into as many market to sustain their valuation and future before regulations start to close many open doors.
Also, when entire EU comission makes “AI” a core focus, all other governments are having a FOMO, which is the most fertile opportunity to entrench oneself quickly before everyone realises the smoke and mirror of “productivity gain” song means just making another layer of middleman mandatory for everything(see Apple pushing towards modifying Safari to be AI first).
Also what climate change? Everyone was being shamed into indignation recently for their carbon footprints, only to wake up to massive power infra expansion and Nvidia/Amazon/Msft announcing that everything is on the table including burning more fossil fuel to power the energy demand(utilities are usually often govt controlled and hence a social cost overall).
nyc_data_geek1 · 13h ago
The climate change that, if left unchecked, will almost certainly lead to the death of much of humanity, and the majority of life on Earth. Hundreds of millions of climate refugees knocking at your door.
egorfine · 18h ago
> Partner with countries to help build in-country data center capacity.
Except USA banned export of GPUs to like half of the European Union, let alone third-world countries.
andrewinardeer · 18h ago
As long as banned GPUs are under USA control and know what data is being processed on them then perhaps it will be allowed.
MegaButts · 18h ago
Trump has announced plans to change that (this is news from today).
> The Trump administration plans to rescind Biden-era AI chip curbs as part of a broader effort to revise semiconductor trade restrictions that have drawn strong opposition from major tech companies and foreign governments, according to people familiar with the matter.
pornel · 5h ago
This doesn't mean anything. He won't get enough likes on Xitter tomorrow and will flip-flop to 1000% tariffs or whatever else comes to his senile mind.
This unstable circus of a government can't be trusted.
egorfine · 6h ago
Given any other US administration this would be a good news. This one? I genuinely have no idea.
mooreds · 18h ago
On several of Tyler Cowen's recent podcasts, he has said essentially "there are really only two countries that have AI, China and the USA. Does this mean that other countries (like Peru) won't really have a functioning, powerful government when AI runs everything".
> As you know, not many countries have serious AI companies, and even those in Europe may or may not last. They’re not obviously mega profitable. Let’s say you’re the government of Peru, and you can turn over your education system to some foreign, maybe American, AIs. You can turn over how your treasury is managed to the AIs. You can turn over your national defense to the AIs. None of these are Peruvian companies most likely. In the final analysis, are we even left with the government of Peru? Or has it, in some sense, been pseudo privatized to the companies that are running the structures, and indeed to the AI itself?
Interesting to have OpenAI offer up AI infra so other countries are not at quite as large a disadvantage. Also really good for their business.
soared · 15h ago
IMO that analysis is shortsighted when looking at other technologies. Peru’s government would grind to a halt with say, windows/osx, excel, chrome, email etc. They are all tools that enable work. I don’t see AI being categorically different.
In this hypothetical world where AI runs the treasury, is the US now in a massively better position to make treasury related decisions? Maybe? Does the US gov have a remote chance of abiding by these decisions? Etc.
I can see Peru being disadvantaged if they don’t use AI, but if they contract out and set up their own stuff that they didn’t actually build - how’s that really worse? I feel like they let the US spend hundreds of billions in development costs and can now reap the rewards.
47282847 · 5h ago
> They are all tools that enable work. I don’t see AI being categorically different.
You don’t see the difference between a self-contained product, and a foreign subscription service with no influence over what it is delivering and the privacy and data sovereignty implications? Let alone the vast array of subtle manipulation possibilities in responses?
selfhoster11 · 8h ago
By and large, those technologies do not come with an always-on umbilical that leads out of the borders of those countries. It is relatively easy to build out capacity, unlike with AI that requires extremely specialised hardware in vast quantities.
simonw · 17h ago
Mistral mean France (and through it Europe) do have at least one very solid contender.
ClumsyPilot · 16h ago
> You can turn over your national defense to the AIs. None of these are Peruvian companies most likely. In the final analysis, are we even left with the government of Peru?
Folks, this has already been happening for decades, western consultancies and think tanks have been pushing for privatisation and outsourcing to American firms and as a result many governments, like UK, have been hollowed. In many cases they haven’t got a grip and the country is running on autopilot.
As the consultancies replace employees with AI, the outcome you talk about will be achieved, in about 5 years. No far fetched future required
ToucanLoucan · 17h ago
> when AI runs everything
You can't be seriously considering fancy autocomplete word guessers are replacing governments when Musk can't even get Grok to stop telling Twitter users what a moron he is.
HeatrayEnjoyer · 16h ago
Fancy autocomplete is, today, killing people in at least two wars. We must stop dismissing the technical nightmare now at our doorstep.
apwell23 · 11h ago
llms are killing ppl ? care to share any references ?
selfhoster11 · 8h ago
Anthropic is allowing the US government to use their services. This includes various intelligence organisations and their data analysis they presumably use to target strikes.
dzhiurgis · 13h ago
> Musk can't even get Grok to stop telling Twitter users what a moron he is
what an oxymoron.
this is testament how good grok is.
ClumsyPilot · 15h ago
> fancy autocomplete word guessers are replacing governments
UK has had them in government since 2022, or maybe since Brexit/ Teresa May with her nickname Maybot.
The decline in quality of governance has been so severe, that I’d wager you would not see a difference. Both sides of the isle seem to be full of unintelligent or inexperienced people that do not believe in anything or have a vision
notrealyme123 · 11h ago
The wording gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Every bit if private/secret data will be 100% used to train their global cash cow models.
blitzar · 10h ago
The wording feels like it was written by Ai.
rikafurude21 · 18h ago
I dont get the proposition, they want to build DCs in partnering countries to run GPT on? Who is this useful for, except for OpenAI to get lower latency connections to their customers?
eksu · 18h ago
Not latencies, think data privacy / keeping queries and data from leaving sovereign borders. This way, if there is some local instance / everything is local than the datacenter and service are subject to local laws and regulations (and alternatively you're not subject to foriegn the laws and regulations (and agencies).
sReinwald · 9h ago
That's not quite correct. The "sovereignty" pitch here is largely illusory when dealing with a US-based company like OpenAI.
The US CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) explicitly gives US authorities the power to compel US-based companies to provide data stored on servers, regardless of where those servers are physically located. This effectively undermines any meaningful data sovereignty claims.
Consider the actual arrangement being proposed:
- OpenAI (US company) maintains control of the infrastructure
- OpenAI controls the models and their development
- OpenAI maintains the security protocols and access rights
- The data merely sits physically within national borders
This isn't sovereignty - it's a limited hosting arrangement that remains fully under US legal jurisdiction. US intelligence agencies can still access this data through legal mechanisms that bypass the host country's laws entirely.
rany_ · 5h ago
It would also allow OpenAI to operate in countries that have state subsidized electricity and low wages.
gerash · 17h ago
locality is good for resilience and latency but for privacy? how does it work?
How can one audit that the bytes going from a DC in country A to a DC in the US is not the user queries but some telemetry data for example? Presumably you don't get to look at the unencrypted packets
eldenring · 18h ago
I mean its useful to the customers who get lower latency too.
john2x · 16h ago
Ah yes, save 100ms for a chat response that takes 10 seconds to generate.
lvturner · 4h ago
Today
siquick · 18h ago
This sounds like the sales pitch for the AI Prime Ministers in Ray Naylers excellent new book, Where The Axe is Buried.
> It’s clear to everyone now that this kind of infrastructure is going to be the backbone of future economic growth and national development
Source?
nprateem · 13h ago
They mean for themselves.
Y_Y · 18h ago
Hey sama, ballsy move!
Have you considered that this proposition is even too ridiculous for current reality?
minimaxir · 18h ago
The Stargate link is notable since that has received a large amount of backing from the United States government, who hasn’t been friendly with other countries lately.
skywhopper · 18h ago
Stargate has no US government funding. It was latched onto by Trump to pretend he was immediately making some “deals”. But the whole thing is an illusion of pre-existing projects and investments that pre-date the last election.
nprateem · 13h ago
It's not an illusion if he can threaten to disable access, etc. which of course he could, just like China.
grafmax · 17h ago
They are claiming that free markets are an expression of democratic principles.
Free markets concentrate wealth and power.
Concentration of wealth and power is antithetical to democracy.
ClumsyPilot · 15h ago
See, you just don’t get it, we will only be free when we get rid of politicians and have referendums on all legislation.
But you can sell options on your family’s votes.
Once someone sells a vote, they are in vote debt, and can default by voting a different person than they agreed.
So now you have to have a credit rating, but for voters. Then you need to have Voter Default swaps, which can be Bundled into Voter Default Obligations, Of VDO’s. And then you can have Synthetic Voter Default Swaps and ahead of a major election you can do a Big Short.
stego-tech · 18h ago
So let me get this straight: countries fund the infrastructure, shoulder the risk, dole out taxpayer money to the for-profit arm of OpenAI, weaken privacy laws, and hand over taxpayer data for…nothing? It just reads like a “hey gullible suckers, give us your land/money/data and we’ll let you slap our logo on stuff until it’s no longer economically convenient for us to do so, at which point we’ll demand you subsidize us because we can claim we’re indispensable/too big to fail” grift to me, unless I’m missing something.
bnjms · 18h ago
This is the leader pg admires?
paradite · 12h ago
I'm getting so much sci-fi vibes from this post.
I've read so many sci-fi stories where big tech corporations have similar control over people as countries. Now we are actually heading there.
I'm both excited and a bit worried about the future.
nicbou · 9h ago
Heading there? Facebook has been a kingmaker for a decade. Musk runs DOGE. Most big companies can bully smaller administrations when they feel the need.
botanical · 1h ago
As if Western-backed companies are some type of beacon of light. If news of your company has Trump and Oracle linked to it, you aren't the good guys. This is just the American way of "consolidating power", by "spreading democracy."
Also, it's not like OpenAI responses aren't censored when it comes to "sensitive" topics.
simonjgreen · 18h ago
I’m trying to remember the last time I saw an advertisement or product targeting entire nations…
aduffy · 18h ago
Every defense company. c.f. Anduril's "arsenal of democracy" campaign
gloosx · 9h ago
Is it really clear to everyone that this kind of infrastructure will be the backbone of future economic growth and national development?
Helping people do more? Scaling our ability to create and produce?
Sadly, none of these things ever made us happier as humans.
agnishom · 17h ago
How can it be "democratic AI" if the infrastructure is held privately?
No comments yet
cheriot · 18h ago
"We will trade control for datacenter subsidies"
Brilliant in a Bond villain way
neilv · 18h ago
They mention a good point (which probably most countries already realized), but the obvious answer is to invest in lowercase open AI, not uppercase OpenAI.
estebarb · 18h ago
In the post-truth era, with fascism gaining adepts all across the world... who would want to give a government editorial powers on generative AI?
I'm deeply pessimistic.
mrcwinn · 18h ago
Anyone have something positive to say?
Paddywack · 13h ago
I’ll try, but not succeed with a view from Australia..
Companies and governments have been concerned about data and AI sovereignty, and chip (processing) access. The new risks imposed by the USA are increasing this concern / push.
So, it’s hardly surprising that Sama is getting a lot of calls for local instances.
However, if the data etc. moves back to the USA this is exactly the opposite of the control companies and governments are looking for.
So, fair proposal, wrong execution.
Waterluvian · 18h ago
Honest > positive
mrcwinn · 17h ago
Well, sure, but that’s irrelevant here.
Most of the commentary is presuming to know something about OpenAI’s motivations. That’s not honesty; it’s just an opinion. So my question stands. Does anyone have a positive opinion?
Here’s a take. For those of us who use their tools in our day to day, we might take for granted that we have the existing and new infrastructure to support that product. Is it more good than bad that other parts of the world could reach beyond their current grasp? I hope so. It might be.
staticman2 · 4h ago
I guess you were hoping that people wouldn't post opinions related to "democracy" in a discussion of a product offering "democratic AI rails."
You worked very hard to offer an "opinion" that largely ignored the topic of discussion.
The problem is your "opinion" in avoiding the topic of discussion says basically nothing.
ClumsyPilot · 15h ago
> presuming to know something about OpenAI’s motivations
To increase shareholder value?
dbalatero · 17h ago
Why should that be a requirement? Do you have anything positive to say?
mrcwinn · 17h ago
It’s not a requirement. If it’s just the culture of HN to dunk on certain companies or products, then it is. This place doesn’t belong to me any more than it belongs to you. I am hopeful though that we could encourage more diversity of opinion here. Otherwise it’s exhausting.
And yes, I do, and it’s shared in a different comment. Search if you care to read it.
gizmodo59 · 15h ago
I’ve been noticing this a lot too. Dunk on companies and products and blindly glorify other companies and product (emotional rather than objective)
dbalatero · 17h ago
Interesting, I've had the opposite feeling of AI being super hyped throughout the industry, with tons of positivity and not a whole lot of reflection or criticism.
H8crilA · 18h ago
So that's just (or "just") locating the inference infrastructure inside the user's country? All operations, deployment, all training, tuning and development, contract negotiations remain the same?
akomtu · 2h ago
That's how AI is going to fuse countries together. People will be gradually outsourcing various functions of their governments to a few AIs, until one day they will realise that nearly everything on the planet is managed by AI, using the same principles. National govs will become a fiction at this point. Problem is, this process won't stop there. AI will be given the right to monitor and manage human behavior, in the name of safety, of course, and those who disagree to hand their will to AI like that will be declared enemies of the people and will be reeducated with very creative methods. It will be a perfect inhuman civilization with the AI as its king.
nico · 2h ago
To a certain degree, this is already the case
Our attention is dictated or at least influenced in big part, by AI, not LLMs, but the algorithms behind Google, Meta/Insta, TikTok, et al
And our attention is what ends up controlling our actions (this is kinda the core of meditation and Buddhist-style practices)
greenavocado · 18h ago
This is a genius move to lock in revenue from countries lacking the technological infrastructure and capital to develop and run their own "safe" (for the local junta) models. Doubly so that OpenAI are experts in censorship - I mean "alignment" - and can help local authorities impose a localized censorship regime. The logical next step is going hard on promoting "AI Safety" and legislating the use of certified approved censored models in each locale, and criminalizing the use and possession of unapproved models, the same way certain JPEG files carry multi year prison sentences or how possession of certain books in certain countries carries prison time.
hoshikihao · 18h ago
Why do you restrict people from Chinese Mainland from using ChatGPT?
rany_ · 5h ago
Isn't it blocked by GFW not OpenAI?
lm28469 · 17h ago
> It’s clear to everyone now that this kind of infrastructure is going to be the backbone of future economic growth and national development
lmao, is there a single soul at openai who truly believe this bullshit?
Are they so high on their own supply they can't even tell they're becoming a parody of a black mirror evil corp?
Ericson2314 · 14h ago
This is for the Gulf states.
I_am_tiberius · 18h ago
As a consumer, this makes me afraid.
Leary · 18h ago
Translation:
You provide the capital and the data, we'll co-own the data centers share the models until Trump and the US government decide to shut it off as a bargaining chip.
omneity · 18h ago
"And as a bonus we'll have the first pick on every little thing your citizens are thinking about."
maartenscholl · 18h ago
Democratic AI is non-negotiable
jsnell · 18h ago
> Through formalized infrastructure collaborations, and in coordination with the US government, OpenAI will:
> Partner countries also would invest in expanding the global Stargate Project—and thus in continued US-led AI leadership and a global, growing network effect for democratic AI.
Yeah, good luck with that pitch... I have to assume that the target market for this page is not other countries, but the US leadership.
dimaulupov · 15h ago
Every interested country gets 5% discount on tariffs?
hlava · 18h ago
Looks like OpenAI is trying to set the narrative, literally.
n_ary · 16h ago
Hmm, the cynic in me reads this as move fast and capture market(+regulation) before new regulation is setup to thwart the likes of GDPR and other privacy acts. When something is new and regulators are having hard time understanding the consequences and future risks, it is most efficient and cheap to capture the market. Once the fallouts start, regulations strike but by then the early players are too big and well established to deal with anything, while the new and smaller players get crushed under compliance and consequences of the early big players’ shenanigans.
fancyfredbot · 17h ago
This is simultaneously why most people desperately want to invest in OpenAI and at the same time why all the best gen AI researchers want to work for anthropic. The less you understand the more impressive this seems. Conversley the more you understand the more embarrassing this seems.
gizmodo59 · 15h ago
Can you give more detail on this? Or this is a vibe comment? Who do you consider as “best”?
goshx · 13h ago
> We want to help these countries, and in the process, spread democratic AI, which means the development, use and deployment of AI that protects and incorporates long-standing democratic principles (…) Likewise, we believe that partnering closely with the US government is the best way to advance democratic AI.
The current US government? To protect “long-standing democratic principles”? Give me a break.
philip1209 · 18h ago
I guess Norway as first customer.
867-5309 · 18h ago
seeking cheap land, electricity and labour. this stunt is bound to backfire
light_hue_1 · 18h ago
So they're running out of large enough companies as customers. Now they want governments to pay them.
3np · 14h ago
Reminds me of Meta mobile data partnerships in Myanmar. Same arguments and similar playbook. That did not go well for people in Myanmar.
> We’ve heard from many countries asking for help in building out similar AI infrastructure—that they want their own Stargates and similar projects.
Who is this for exactly? The thing about reneging on your agreements and treaties and threatening and demonizing everyone around you is that they learn not to trust you. US-led AI sounds terrible, it would never pass muster in Canada. Neither in the EU, China, India, Brazil... Like, you Cannot entrust your governments functioning on the US anymore, you can just get cut off at any point for no reason.
So who's this for?
vitorgrs · 7h ago
Brazil it's actually building a project to give tax breaks and change/simplify a few regulation for datacenter projects. Import tariffs will also be 0 for them...
Finance Minister it's in the California trying to bring investments from the big techs... He met with Jensen Huang already.
I wouldn't doubt if Brazil might be interested.
TikTok is also interested in building a datacenter in Ceará, Brazil, as part of this project.
marviel · 18h ago
every day the culture grows nearer
morkalork · 16h ago
How is this different from NGOs flooding poor countries with food aid and causing prices to crash, local farmers to go bankrupt and then become dependent on that same aid? There are 2nd and 3rd order effects on innocent partnerships everywhere.
stevage · 18h ago
I sure did not expect to see Trump's name used in a positive way when talking about supporting democracy.
jMyles · 18h ago
...this is not AI for countries. This is AI for _governments_. Those two concepts are diametrically opposed to one another.
stepanhruda · 18h ago
Diametrically opposed? They are distinct, but hardly opposed.
notpushkin · 18h ago
It really depends.
jMyles · 17h ago
Well I guess the time scale is what determines the degree to which the distinction becomes opposition. AI is likely to persist for tens or hundreds of thousands of years in some form. Are any of today's nation states built to last that long? I think we all know the answer.
If you have AI which is in the service of an entity which proclaims itself to be the sole franchise of government authority over a given landmass, it is strictly incorrect to say that this AI is "for the country", because it's perfectly plausible (and on sufficiently long time scales, inevitable) that the country will want to evolve, replace, or deprecate that entity.
stepanhruda · 14h ago
I agree that “AI for governments” is much more accurate, just saying that diametrically opposed doesn’t really capture the relationship between the two concepts well
skywhopper · 18h ago
This is disturbing to read and wonder what other countries are going to want “democratic” AI developed in partnership with and “led by” the US and Trump.
verdverm · 17h ago
Probably other "democratic" countries?
rambojohnson · 18h ago
blah blah blah.. anybody else fatigued by all this nonsense?
paul7986 · 18h ago
sounds like you dont use GPT Many to numerous times a day too....
drivingmenuts · 15h ago
Not sorry, I don't trust anything with Trump's name attached to it. I have to live here, but I don't have to like it, or trust him or anyone attached to him.
dev1ycan · 11h ago
Dude I'm reading 1984 at the moment and it's really crazy, George Orwell could only dream...
stogot · 14h ago
This is so tone deaf that it’s embarrassing. And to liken OpenAI as democratic is beyond ignorant, it’s deceitful
I'm reading this in the same voice as Helldivers 2 "managed democracy"
The only way it stops becoming a winning strategy is if we provide consequences, but that requires taking personal responsibility for the state of the world, which was a core American value, but doesn't seem to be anymore.
In order to change the game theoretic outcomes, we‘d need a systemic change that affects the rewards, not a personal attitude change that will become a losing strategy in the game.
Also, do you remember how tobacco companies were invited to the table to discuss whether smoking is bad for you? Were those the days of personal responsibility or was it even before that?
As the AI leaders themselves admit [1], they are doing what they're doing (i.e. capability-maxxing without caring deeply about actual risks this opens up for humanity) because they can and because the other guy's doing it, so why should they be left behind?
They're asking for some external force to bring the morality that they agree on paper ought to exist. There is a segment among them that are even okay with millions of people dying before the risk of AI gets taken seriously. [2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrESBnPYoZU, seek to 2:45 [2] same as above, seek to 3:25
A rookie gangster shot a high-tier gangster — why is that a me problem? Gang-on-gang violence is a daily occurrence.
It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the law by quite some time. For the obvious extreme there - slavery was completely legal. Society began to believe that such a thing was no longer fit for society, and consequently acting against it, long before it was outlawed.
Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
People broadly agree that they dont like the status quo. They dont agree on what would be better. You cant have change without direction and detail.
And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either republican or democrat (with independents being the largest 'party' by far), yet lo and behold like 99.9% of politicians at all levels, high and low, are republican or democrat, with basically no independent representation because the system makes it unreasonably difficult to select an alternative. This is further confounded by an utterly worthless media system that further works to entrench the political establishment, and much more.
Massively increasing inequality and giving too much political power to corporate robber barons has its costs. If nobody is willing to keep them in check the appearance of some sort of “vigilantism” seems hard to avoid. Not implying that its a good thing or that political violence really ever led to positive change historically..
How many people has UHC killed? I don’t know, it’s really hard to measure. Besides the people killed because they didn’t receive funding for care, there’s also the plethora of practices insurers enforce. Some, maybe most, of those practices are non-optimal, so some subset of people are dying that shouldn’t. Oh well.
Beyond the obvious moral decay of cheering on murder at all, and the fact you’re in the privileged class of the richest nation on earth, the idea of targeting the replaceable middle managers of said system is so silly. As if committing random acts of terrorism will somehow force Americans to democratically design a better system? Fear is just another recipe for more ballooning costs (see the TSA).
I guess I find this so amusing because leftists love to fetishize European healthcare without understanding in European countries the government is much more aggressive about denying care than any US insurer. They actually have to keep costs sane for their system to continue existing.
All economic systems must contend with resource scarcity. Part of dealing with that is rationing resources which can take the form of higher prices, longer waiting lines, by need, countless other metrics, or some combination of metrics. While the current healthcare system in the US is a byzantine disaster that only a bureaucrat could love, I think far too many think there is a "solution" that somehow leads to a system without resource constraints. This imagined system isn't an economic system though, it's just a utopia.
“The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.” -- Thomas Sowell
The privileged class is significantly higher up than this. I've clawed every bit of everything I have from this world despite many efforts to keep me down.
I don't find your comment genuine at all. You're just trying to be dismissive.
That is also the case for US insurers. The only difference is if the government denies life saving treatments, people protest. If private insurers do so, people have no recourse.
US healthcare is one of the most complicated systems of adverse incentives and tangled byzantine public/private spiderwebs ever created. To kill random people involved at 15 layers of abstraction away from the actual root causes thinking that will somehow make it better is probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
Sam Altman should receive the same treatment as Aaron Swartz. Actually, he should be punished much more severely since the scope of his copyright infringement makes Aaron's seem like child's play.
"Smaht"[1] people learn to game the system and scam others for momentary benefit.
The worse side that is that we're all guilty of that system, to some degree, even if only by enabling it.
I'm also 100% sure that this is what drives civilizations to the ground.
1. Smaht is a term I use to describe people who think they're smart but they're actually extremely stupid. A lot of smaht people have degrees and diplomas which further fuels their delusion of intelligence.
Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
(@AlexBlechman on twitter)
Tech adjacent blogger: Hey guys here me out I love that we're building "starships" but it would also be spiffy if we end democracy and appoint a God Emperor!
Quite often this dystopian 'fiction' is just a biography with the names and place rewritten. A scary number of people are rather anti-human.
https://chatgpt.com/share/681c31e8-67f8-8011-a4b0-2bed9d4da7...
I'm reminded of the first half of this wonderful short-story that was shared on HN a year back https://www.fortressofdoors.com/four-magic-words/
Open weights and code and models? That's the only way to ensure sovereignty.
I think this company is a walking oxymoron.
Synthetic training data sets, even robotically-acquired real world "synthetic" data, can rapidly create training sets. It's just a matter of coordinating these efforts and building high quality data.
I've made a few data sets using Unreal Engine, and I've been wanting to put various objects on turn tables and go out on backpack 3D scan adventures.
Someone will have to pay for it, though.
As someone who is both expected to keep creating information to train AI while being stripped from the fruit of my labour by it, I find it sickening.
Tech companies only care about growth. They only care about anything else insofar as it supports growth.
Well, OpenAI, I think you are mixing up your own backend for economic growth with everyone’s!
Though of course this is already the status quo for all US companies abroad, so you have to give props to OpenAI for spelling it out explicitly: Give up what remains of your digital sovereignty to the US government and you get a small piece of the AGI pie.
You can make a lot of complaints about America but we have, looking back on history, been nicer than any other patron. Other good evidence includes the fact that europe is still standing (paying to rebuild) and her extravagant welfare states of the past decades, subsidized largely by American defense spending.
This is straight up Russian mentality.
> extravagant welfare states of the past decades, subsidized largely by American defense spending
This sounds to me like a US partisan narrative rather than anything else. It’s a nice story, because it strokes the American ego, but I’ve yet seen it backed up by serious analysis. Most likely it’s just a story.
There was actually a really good article in the FT of all places on this subject: https://www.ft.com/content/37053b2b-ccda-4ce3-a25d-f1d0f82e7...
The fact that the FT is picking this up should tell us something given its typical perspective. There are two big groups of countries in this situation concerned with keeping russia in check: America and the Euros. The former has less of a direct concern but more ability to do something about it; the former have more concerns but less ability. So we settled on a compromise where each country would contribute a proportion of GDP rather than a dollar figure. This is fair-ish; it's still a huge benefit to the euros, but pretty fair. Yet for decades, they have consistently failed to meet their proportional obligations, instead directing those funds to things like "free healthcare".
Other major reasons they can do this include not having debt from having to finance the rebuilding of their continent themselves.
I don't know how you can look at nearly a century of US imperialism in Latin America and the Middle East and conclude that client states is a Russian thing.
> subsidized largely by American defense spending.
This part is in my opinion ahistoric. US wars have not been popular in Europe. We did not want a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, we supported an ally calling for defense from terror. American war machine spending is rooted in her own desire for hard power, not pleas from her allies.
All of this is coming to an end. Not because the US is retracting. I think most of the west would accept a more nationally interested US, but because the US is starting to see her allies as vassals that she should control. She is realigning as a traditional power, like the USSR.
We are not vassals, we are independent nations seeking our own happiness.
there is no data sovereignty if there's a US entity at the top
Honestly though, we have a much bigger issue with climate change in the medium to long run and it doesn't really matter what our governments and companies do with stats and spyware. If anyone thinks we can stop and deal with the climate when it becomes a bigger problem, just take a look at our track record so far.
(only mentioning climate change to offer perspective)
Regulators are still figuring out this “AI” and oAI must move into as many market to sustain their valuation and future before regulations start to close many open doors.
Also, when entire EU comission makes “AI” a core focus, all other governments are having a FOMO, which is the most fertile opportunity to entrench oneself quickly before everyone realises the smoke and mirror of “productivity gain” song means just making another layer of middleman mandatory for everything(see Apple pushing towards modifying Safari to be AI first).
Also what climate change? Everyone was being shamed into indignation recently for their carbon footprints, only to wake up to massive power infra expansion and Nvidia/Amazon/Msft announcing that everything is on the table including burning more fossil fuel to power the energy demand(utilities are usually often govt controlled and hence a social cost overall).
Except USA banned export of GPUs to like half of the European Union, let alone third-world countries.
https://archive.is/2eLzj
> The Trump administration plans to rescind Biden-era AI chip curbs as part of a broader effort to revise semiconductor trade restrictions that have drawn strong opposition from major tech companies and foreign governments, according to people familiar with the matter.
This unstable circus of a government can't be trusted.
See https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/chris-dixon/
> As you know, not many countries have serious AI companies, and even those in Europe may or may not last. They’re not obviously mega profitable. Let’s say you’re the government of Peru, and you can turn over your education system to some foreign, maybe American, AIs. You can turn over how your treasury is managed to the AIs. You can turn over your national defense to the AIs. None of these are Peruvian companies most likely. In the final analysis, are we even left with the government of Peru? Or has it, in some sense, been pseudo privatized to the companies that are running the structures, and indeed to the AI itself?
Interesting to have OpenAI offer up AI infra so other countries are not at quite as large a disadvantage. Also really good for their business.
In this hypothetical world where AI runs the treasury, is the US now in a massively better position to make treasury related decisions? Maybe? Does the US gov have a remote chance of abiding by these decisions? Etc.
I can see Peru being disadvantaged if they don’t use AI, but if they contract out and set up their own stuff that they didn’t actually build - how’s that really worse? I feel like they let the US spend hundreds of billions in development costs and can now reap the rewards.
You don’t see the difference between a self-contained product, and a foreign subscription service with no influence over what it is delivering and the privacy and data sovereignty implications? Let alone the vast array of subtle manipulation possibilities in responses?
Folks, this has already been happening for decades, western consultancies and think tanks have been pushing for privatisation and outsourcing to American firms and as a result many governments, like UK, have been hollowed. In many cases they haven’t got a grip and the country is running on autopilot.
As the consultancies replace employees with AI, the outcome you talk about will be achieved, in about 5 years. No far fetched future required
You can't be seriously considering fancy autocomplete word guessers are replacing governments when Musk can't even get Grok to stop telling Twitter users what a moron he is.
what an oxymoron.
this is testament how good grok is.
UK has had them in government since 2022, or maybe since Brexit/ Teresa May with her nickname Maybot.
The decline in quality of governance has been so severe, that I’d wager you would not see a difference. Both sides of the isle seem to be full of unintelligent or inexperienced people that do not believe in anything or have a vision
The US CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) explicitly gives US authorities the power to compel US-based companies to provide data stored on servers, regardless of where those servers are physically located. This effectively undermines any meaningful data sovereignty claims.
Consider the actual arrangement being proposed:
This isn't sovereignty - it's a limited hosting arrangement that remains fully under US legal jurisdiction. US intelligence agencies can still access this data through legal mechanisms that bypass the host country's laws entirely.How can one audit that the bytes going from a DC in country A to a DC in the US is not the user queries but some telemetry data for example? Presumably you don't get to look at the unencrypted packets
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374615369/wheretheaxeisbu...
Source?
Have you considered that this proposition is even too ridiculous for current reality?
Free markets concentrate wealth and power.
Concentration of wealth and power is antithetical to democracy.
But you can sell options on your family’s votes.
Once someone sells a vote, they are in vote debt, and can default by voting a different person than they agreed.
So now you have to have a credit rating, but for voters. Then you need to have Voter Default swaps, which can be Bundled into Voter Default Obligations, Of VDO’s. And then you can have Synthetic Voter Default Swaps and ahead of a major election you can do a Big Short.
I've read so many sci-fi stories where big tech corporations have similar control over people as countries. Now we are actually heading there.
I'm both excited and a bit worried about the future.
Also, it's not like OpenAI responses aren't censored when it comes to "sensitive" topics.
Helping people do more? Scaling our ability to create and produce?
Sadly, none of these things ever made us happier as humans.
No comments yet
Brilliant in a Bond villain way
I'm deeply pessimistic.
Companies and governments have been concerned about data and AI sovereignty, and chip (processing) access. The new risks imposed by the USA are increasing this concern / push.
So, it’s hardly surprising that Sama is getting a lot of calls for local instances.
However, if the data etc. moves back to the USA this is exactly the opposite of the control companies and governments are looking for.
So, fair proposal, wrong execution.
Most of the commentary is presuming to know something about OpenAI’s motivations. That’s not honesty; it’s just an opinion. So my question stands. Does anyone have a positive opinion?
Here’s a take. For those of us who use their tools in our day to day, we might take for granted that we have the existing and new infrastructure to support that product. Is it more good than bad that other parts of the world could reach beyond their current grasp? I hope so. It might be.
You worked very hard to offer an "opinion" that largely ignored the topic of discussion.
The problem is your "opinion" in avoiding the topic of discussion says basically nothing.
To increase shareholder value?
And yes, I do, and it’s shared in a different comment. Search if you care to read it.
Our attention is dictated or at least influenced in big part, by AI, not LLMs, but the algorithms behind Google, Meta/Insta, TikTok, et al
And our attention is what ends up controlling our actions (this is kinda the core of meditation and Buddhist-style practices)
lmao, is there a single soul at openai who truly believe this bullshit?
Are they so high on their own supply they can't even tell they're becoming a parody of a black mirror evil corp?
You provide the capital and the data, we'll co-own the data centers share the models until Trump and the US government decide to shut it off as a bargaining chip.
> Partner countries also would invest in expanding the global Stargate Project—and thus in continued US-led AI leadership and a global, growing network effect for democratic AI.
Yeah, good luck with that pitch... I have to assume that the target market for this page is not other countries, but the US leadership.
The current US government? To protect “long-standing democratic principles”? Give me a break.
https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-full-series
Who is this for exactly? The thing about reneging on your agreements and treaties and threatening and demonizing everyone around you is that they learn not to trust you. US-led AI sounds terrible, it would never pass muster in Canada. Neither in the EU, China, India, Brazil... Like, you Cannot entrust your governments functioning on the US anymore, you can just get cut off at any point for no reason.
So who's this for?
Finance Minister it's in the California trying to bring investments from the big techs... He met with Jensen Huang already.
I wouldn't doubt if Brazil might be interested.
TikTok is also interested in building a datacenter in Ceará, Brazil, as part of this project.
If you have AI which is in the service of an entity which proclaims itself to be the sole franchise of government authority over a given landmass, it is strictly incorrect to say that this AI is "for the country", because it's perfectly plausible (and on sufficiently long time scales, inevitable) that the country will want to evolve, replace, or deprecate that entity.