The general theme of meta's approach across the board here is interesting - basically, they are trying to win in part by taking risks others aren't willing to. I can imagine they saw that all the success is coming so far when a someone is willing to cross a boundary that wasn't previously thought acceptable - from releasing ChatGPT in the first place, to things like OpenClaw.
So now they are actively distributing SDKs and to let people "hack" custom hardware integrations to their already risky AI agents unleashed on the general public. Giving agents abilty to control things in the physical world - what could possibly go wrong?
But here we are: so far the story is pretty much 100% "fortune favors the bold", and Meta is leaning into it.
> But here we are: so far the story is pretty much 100% "fortune favors the bold", and Meta is leaning into it.
Been thinking about this lately when I saw some mathematicians talking about more AI regulation after the millennial prize thing.
Move fast break things, fortune favors the bold, breaking rules doesn't matter if you win, etc silicon valley ideologies to me seem to be domination ideologies. Uber may toy with playing nice with taxi law until it's too annoying, then they shift to getting as many people as possible to have their commute, convenience, or livelihood to depend on it, then they can turn around to regulators with their finger on their chin and say "oopsies, I guess everyone needs us now, better consider that in your regulatory efforts!"
It's the brunch equivalent of changing the restaurant the night before to one you prefer by DMing everyone in the group chat with "we decided to change to antipodean because dave had a breakup with one of the waiters at french twist," and then when everyone arrives and Dave says "I've never dated a waiter in my life," you say "well we're all already here so..."
Anyway, it seems pointless to try to regulate this culture out of these kinds of companies or really this entire scene. Any law is now just an obstacle, and besides, various government actors seem to be angling for industry retirement positions, so passing useful regulation seems basically impossible.
Imo two can play at this game. When law fails to serve the interests of the people or is even weaponized by the interests of Capital against us, what's the point of it? I'm interested in things like LLM distillation and open weight models that take the winds of profit out of the sails of these "disruptors" to make their activities have no payoff. Wonder what other things we can do that would make someone ask "why would I send all my data to Facebook when I could instead just..." Pirating, free culture, leaks, hell outright theft, if we're going to disrupt things, why not DISRUPT things?
zmmmmm · · focus · HN ↗
So now they are actively distributing SDKs and to let people "hack" custom hardware integrations to their already risky AI agents unleashed on the general public. Giving agents abilty to control things in the physical world - what could possibly go wrong?
But here we are: so far the story is pretty much 100% "fortune favors the bold", and Meta is leaning into it.
komali2 · · focus · HN ↗
Been thinking about this lately when I saw some mathematicians talking about more AI regulation after the millennial prize thing.
Move fast break things, fortune favors the bold, breaking rules doesn't matter if you win, etc silicon valley ideologies to me seem to be domination ideologies. Uber may toy with playing nice with taxi law until it's too annoying, then they shift to getting as many people as possible to have their commute, convenience, or livelihood to depend on it, then they can turn around to regulators with their finger on their chin and say "oopsies, I guess everyone needs us now, better consider that in your regulatory efforts!"
It's the brunch equivalent of changing the restaurant the night before to one you prefer by DMing everyone in the group chat with "we decided to change to antipodean because dave had a breakup with one of the waiters at french twist," and then when everyone arrives and Dave says "I've never dated a waiter in my life," you say "well we're all already here so..."
Anyway, it seems pointless to try to regulate this culture out of these kinds of companies or really this entire scene. Any law is now just an obstacle, and besides, various government actors seem to be angling for industry retirement positions, so passing useful regulation seems basically impossible.
Imo two can play at this game. When law fails to serve the interests of the people or is even weaponized by the interests of Capital against us, what's the point of it? I'm interested in things like LLM distillation and open weight models that take the winds of profit out of the sails of these "disruptors" to make their activities have no payoff. Wonder what other things we can do that would make someone ask "why would I send all my data to Facebook when I could instead just..." Pirating, free culture, leaks, hell outright theft, if we're going to disrupt things, why not DISRUPT things?