• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Supporting Little Tech is the Practical Way to Deal with Big Tech

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731
If California passes SB-1047 as is (with computing limits and its current language around a "covered model derivative"), I will likely stay home this election.

Don't let the law's name fool you!

Choosing between two different forms of totalitarianism is not a choice at all.

If SB-1047 passes, it would represent to me that the Sam Bankman-Fried forces ("Effective Altruism") would have taken over the Democrat's view of technology—an end-of-the-world scenario if it lasted over this technological platform shift. It would be game over for humanity. I am not going to choose the fascists to try to avoid this scenario, but I am not going to feed it.

Having the only reasonable party of the world's largest superpower's largest economic state putting together a commission to regulate the use of computers to do matrix math based on computing size has cultural revolution vibes. If the commission based regulation on money spent to build models instead of computing size, this would be less explicitly bald-faced regulatory capture.

Ultimately, the reasoning for computing limits comes from Science Fiction and not from facts.

---
How "Effective Altruism" turns evil: They say everything that sounds nice, but perspectives all come from incumbents with more funding than perspective. That an SBF figure would be in charge of the AI tech under the philosophical lineage of "Effective Altruism" is pretty much guaranteed.

To temporarily play the Effective Altruists' Sci-Fi-based "Super" AI Pascal Wager/Mugging reasoning game: The end-game for a closed-source, military-industrial complex scenario is the complete subjugation of the human raceprobability ~100%. In the open-source Sci-Fi scenario, the scenario has some non-zero probability of ending the human race—which, given the heat-death of the universe, is a foregone conclusion.

The philosophical wing of "Effective Altruism" has always favored subjugation and longevity over quality of life and acknowledging that it may be over at some point.
---

Returning to fact instead of fiction, our government has a fundamental misunderstanding of empiricism and the iterative process that follows fact instead of preconception. In short, there is no empiricism without iteration.

Let's not forget the fiasco that was the ACA website rollout--an ultimate failure to understand how essential iteration is to empiricism.

The following is also food for thought along the same lines:

Real cultural revolution vibes.
 

Hypatia

Alexander Anderson
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
688
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp
If California passes SB-1047 as is (with computing limits and its current language around a "covered model derivative"), I will likely stay home this election.

Don't let the law's name fool you!

Choosing between two different forms of totalitarianism is not a choice at all.

If SB-1047 passes, it would represent to me that the Sam Bankman-Fried forces ("Effective Altruism") would have taken over the Democrat's view of technology—an end-of-the-world scenario if it lasted over this technological platform shift. It would be game over for humanity. I am not going to choose the fascists to try to avoid this scenario, but I am not going to feed it.

Having the only reasonable party of the world's largest superpower's largest economic state putting together a commission to regulate the use of computers to do matrix math based on computing size has cultural revolution vibes. If the commission based regulation on money spent to build models instead of computing size, this would be less explicitly bald-faced regulatory capture.

Ultimately, the reasoning for computing limits comes from Science Fiction and not from facts.

---
How "Effective Altruism" turns evil: They say everything that sounds nice, but perspectives all come from incumbents with more funding than perspective. That an SBF figure would be in charge of the AI tech under the philosophical lineage of "Effective Altruism" is pretty much guaranteed.

To temporarily play the Effective Altruists' Sci-Fi-based "Super" AI Pascal Wager/Mugging reasoning game: The end-game for a closed-source, military-industrial complex scenario is the complete subjugation of the human raceprobability ~100%. In the open-source Sci-Fi scenario, the scenario has some non-zero probability of ending the human race—which, given the heat-death of the universe, is a foregone conclusion.

The philosophical wing of "Effective Altruism" has always favored subjugation and longevity over quality of life and acknowledging that it may be over at some point.
---

Returning to fact instead of fiction, our government has a fundamental misunderstanding of empiricism and the iterative process that follows fact instead of preconception. In short, there is no empiricism without iteration.

Let's not forget the fiasco that was the ACA website rollout--an ultimate failure to understand how essential iteration is to empiricism.

The following is also food for thought along the same lines:

Real cultural revolution vibes.

I agree that this law is toxic and is against individual liberty.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731
I agree that this law is toxic and is against individual liberty.
To emphasize how Draconian this is, they want people to register the use of a computer to do the type of math I learned before puberty, and at least for now, is required by every high-schooler to know by the time they graduate high school (even if they forget it subsequently).

I will call it "Pascal's Regulatory Capture" (as an analog to Pascal's Mugging); the most troubling language is the following:
(f) “Covered model derivative” means any of the following:
(1) An unmodified copy of a covered model.
(2) A copy of a covered model that has been subjected to post-training modifications unrelated to fine-tuning.
(3) (A) (i) Before January 1, 2027, a copy of a covered model that has been fine-tuned using a quantity of computing power not exceeding three times 10^25 integer or floating point operations.
(ii) On and after January 1, 2027, a copy of a covered model that has been fine-tuned using a quantity of computing power not exceeding a threshold determined by the Frontier Model Division.
(B) If the Frontier Model Division does not adopt a regulation governing clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) by January 1, 2027, the quantity of computing power specified in clause (i) of subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply until the regulation is adopted.
(4) A copy of a covered model that has been combined with other software.

and
(d) “Computing cluster” means a set of machines transitively connected by data center networking of over 100 gigabits per second that has a theoretical maximum computing capacity of at least 10^20 integer or floating-point operations per second and can be used for training artificial intelligence.

Why is that numerical limit explicit, but the amount of money will be determined later?

If this isn't written with regulatory capture explicitly in mind, I don't know how they could have come closer.
 
Last edited:

Hypatia

Alexander Anderson
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
688
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp
To emphasize how Draconian this is, they want people to register the use of a computer to do the type of math I learned before puberty, and at least for now, is required by every high-schooler to know by the time they graduate high school (even if they forget it subsequently).

I will call it "Pascal's Regulatory Capture" (as an analog to Pascal's Mugging); the most troubling language is the following:


and


Why is that numerical limit explicit, but the amount of money will be determined later?

If this isn't written with regulatory capture explicitly in mind, I don't know how they could have come closer.
I'm not sure about all the financial implications of the law but if they are legislating a worse monopoly when it comes to computing power that really sucks.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731
I'm not sure about all the financial implications of the law but if they are legislating a worse monopoly when it comes to computing power that really sucks.
Indeed, cost directly affects how many people have access, and constraining the people who can access the necessary compute will drive up the cost. I think that intuition makes plenty of sense, even for people who aren't financial experts.

The future is here, but unevenly distributed --- to the extreme if SB-1047 is passed as is.
 

Hypatia

Alexander Anderson
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
688
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp
Indeed, cost directly affects how many people have access, and constraining the people who can access the necessary compute will drive up the cost. I think that intuition makes plenty of sense, even for people who aren't financial experts.

The future is here, but unevenly distributed --- to the extreme if SB-1047 is passed as is.
I think uneven distribution is fine but it depends on whether the legislators are acting in good faith and creating a financial demand that is actually technologically advanced that can "trickle down" meaning actually reach people who need it not legislating mini uneven financial cartels.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731


I am going to beat this drum.

The false claims about SB 1047 are ridiculous - Especially by vox writers of Future Perfect.

They don't make the cost of training the criteria for tracking. They use computing power for the criteria.

Remember the saying that we have more computing power in our pockets than we used to go to the moon? But do we use it to go to the moon?

More crucially, even running a copy of the trained model inside your software will require registration.

Here is how you do it to show you how easy that is now.
1) Follow this link: https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3.1-405B
2) Agree to the terms of service
3) Experiment

My reading of SB 1047 is that the government needs to track you for just that.

The Left is getting up in arms about Project 2025 tracking people watching porn, but monitoring people experimenting with math is okay?
Porn is exercising civil liberty, but math is a no-no?

The Left correctly says Voter ID laws, which are much simpler than the requirements they are placing on this activity, disenfranchise people from voting.
But people only vote every so often.

SB 1047 will disenfranchise technical people from putting food on their family's table.

This isn't billionaire fat cats. It could be you if you decide you are a technical person today and start experimenting.
 
Last edited:

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731
I encourage people to read the bill themselves. Social media around this keeps claiming it will affect only rich folks, but I read it and re-read it, and I am certain it affects me, and I am barely trying to get back on my feet financially.

Technically the llama 3.1 is a little under half the compute limit, but we easily imagine by the year's end of 2025, exceeding it.
 
Last edited:

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731

Only people living in a bubble would be surprised by this. People have been derogatorily calling the situation a "vibe-cession" despite the public complaining loudly that they are struggling to make it.

Then people want to kill the potential for the next wave of job growth with bills like SB 1047? --Based on the fiction of utilitarian philosophers(Pascal's Muggers) and professional propogandists (PR professionals and their ilk)
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731
I know JD Vance is a Venture Capitalist, and several VCs have decided to back Trump (Andersen-Horowitz in particular). The fascist streak Trump and his supporters has is clear, so this is dangerous. But, this support is more than just wanting access, and that is the scary part.

A little background, contrast how company PACs donate, vs how employees donate:

The Tech companies want access, and will pay for it. Tech employees vote what they believe would be better.

But if you talk to the employees(and I have worked in tech my whole working life), you'd realize the support for Democrats comes from being socially liberal. There is data that even among the entrepreneurs, and not just workers, that they are very socially liberal. The thing about tech, is that the boundary between being a worker and starting your own business is just a decision (followed by a lot of pain).

I would say most tech workers support unions, and about 50% express interest in joining unions:

I would also say that most tech workers support small business, with many expressing interest in starting their own. Also, 37% of the work for small businesses.

If we "take down Big Tech", where are the tech workers supposed to work, if you take down little tech also?

Many tech workers lament policies that are anti-business, but they are choosing the lesser of two evils. My data is anecdotal, but I find that the less people get paid (e.g. not an engineer, but a technician), the more likely they hold this view.

Realize also that there is real grievance in the tech sector (like with SB 1047). Current sentiment in the broader Democratic party has authoritarian communist kernels of being anti-prosperity, anti-technology and anti-growth (similar to the fascist kernels being apparent in 2015 among Republicans).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

More generally, most Americans believe businesses are a constructive force for positive change. 25% strongly agree with that statement, while 44% somewhat agree.

Being anti-business and anti-prosperity is not a road we want to go far down. We can be pro-union and pro-business.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731

Science and Technology go hand in hand, with many people going back and forth working in the two sectors.

Denying the reality that there is competition goes beyond wishful thinking that it'd just disappear from human nature.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731
Again, the rhetoric around SB-1047 irks me. As I said before, I am not even close to being a billionaire, and this bill would block my ability to put food on my family's table. I read the bill and interpreted it as someone who reads English and understands how technology functions.

I showed you earlier how you can take actions that would likely require registering with CalCompute if you do something similar by the end of 2025. For the same reasons that Voter ID laws disenfranchise voters, this law would disenfranchise open-source developers from making a living.

It regulates models, not use cases. This bill would be the equivalent of regulating hateful speech by regulating high-quality microphones.

Read this link to see how a small group, if they could forecast modest revenues of only a few thousand dollars a month, could turn a profit running LLama 3.1 -- hardly the $100 million price tag implied in the following part of the law.

(i)An artificial intelligence model trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations, the cost of which exceeds one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) when calculated using the average market prices of cloud compute at the start of training as reasonably assessed by the developer.

Just make it the cost of computing; why are the 10^26 operations in the text at all? It reads like the criteria is computing power for training, which somebody believes would cost $100 million to train. Note that the computing power will likely be exceeded by the end of next year (2025). LLama 3.1 already took 3.8*10^25 to train. This is a stone's throw away from the computing limit, and 2024 is not even done.

There are plenty of similar models, including Mistral, Gemma, and plenty of others.

large-scale-models-by-domain-and-date.png

Can you seriously look at that graph and not realize that we're basically at the computing limit of this bill? Knowing that there are no serious signs that AI models are trying to take over the world, how can having a computing limit like this be part of the law of the land make any sense?

Note that a "covered derivative model" would be just like using next year's LLama:
(f)Covered model derivative means any of the following: []
(4)A copy of a covered model that has been combined with other software.

If this bill passes, I think we should sponsor a bill that requires all content creators and media personalities who use microphones with a Signal-to-Noise Ratio better than 82dB to register with CalMedia, to whom you will need to prove:
1) No one will talk about how chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons can be used in a manner that results in mass casualties.
2) No detailed instructions about cyber attacks will be discussed using these microphones.
3) No one will use the microphones to discuss how mass casualties or property damages of $500M could happen.

A little food for thought:
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731

Reasonable thoughtful people are coming to similar conclusions about CA SB 1047.

I am not a "against"; I believe there should be regulation of AI.

But I am not yet a "support with amendment." There is so much that would need to be amended.

What amendments might make me consider supporting this with amendment?

First, and foremost, I would allow ample room for experimentation and iteration before deployment.

The current version of the bill borders on defining thought crimes. Specifically, it defines thought crimes with the aid of a computer.

So more specifically, to fix this bill:
1) Regulate use cases of deployment, not models.
2) Remove explicit computing power limits form the law and replace with money limits only.
3) Remove "derivative" language.
Deployment plans instead of models should take care of concerns here.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731

Fei Fei Li, Andrew Ng, and Yann LeCun have all come out against this bill (as is). That by itself would have me worried. But I read the bill myself before I knew their positions.
 
Last edited:

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731
I want to walk through cases where the "covered derivative model" of SB 1047 clauses of the bill would kill startups and small businesses in the cradle in more detail.

Here are some calculations to arrive at ~$33/hour for using Llama 3.1 405B on Vultr. It's expensive but you may want to do it for things like synthetic data annotation. Something you would need to do long before you deploy a model--to create proof-of-concept, in-house testing, etc. before you even decide to form a company or deploy your model. Again, Llama 3.1 405B is just a stones throw away from the computing power limit for training. So the equivalent thing next year would trigger based on an intelligent layperson's reading.

How does this kill a startup? Because you would now instead need to hire a lawyer at $1500/hour to make sure you comply with the CalCompute before you can experiment with making your own derivative model.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,731
The government speakers here show me that, at least the FTC, under Biden is thinking fairly clearly about AI.


California's SB 1047 and similar laws are a weird anomaly in the face of this viewpoint. Lina Kahn had to dance around the issue a bit.

I think the anomaly is a Pascal's mugging (regulatory capture).
 
Top