OpenAI \u2018in early talks to give 5% stake to US government\u2019
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48759623"},"story_title":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["us","government"],"value":"The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies"},"story_url":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["us","government"],"value":"https://moeonmargin.substack.com/p/the-us-government-is-now-a-shareholder"}},"_tags":["comment","author_ChrisArchitect","story_48763864"],"author":"ChrisArchitect","comment_text":"Related today:
OpenAI \u2018in early talks to give 5% stake to US government\u2019
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48759623","created_at":"2026-07-02T17:48:34Z","created_at_i":1783014514,"objectID":"48764994","parent_id":48763864,"story_id":48763864,"story_title":"The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies","story_url":"https://moeonmargin.substack.com/p/the-us-government-is-now-a-shareholder","updated_at":"2026-07-03T13:59:38Z"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"ChrisArchitect"},"comment_text":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"Related:
OpenAI \u2018in early talks to give 5% stake to US government\u2019
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48759623"},"story_title":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["stake"],"value":"Trump admin and Anthropic haven't discussed the gov't taking a stake in it"},"story_url":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["government"],"value":"https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-administration-anthropic-have-not-discussed-government-taking-stakes-firm-2026-07-02/"}},"_tags":["comment","author_ChrisArchitect","story_48764644"],"author":"ChrisArchitect","comment_text":"Related:
OpenAI \u2018in early talks to give 5% stake to US government\u2019
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48759623","created_at":"2026-07-02T17:46:42Z","created_at_i":1783014402,"objectID":"48764961","parent_id":48764644,"story_id":48764644,"story_title":"Trump admin and Anthropic haven't discussed the gov't taking a stake in it","story_url":"https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-administration-anthropic-have-not-discussed-government-taking-stakes-firm-2026-07-02/","updated_at":"2026-07-02T17:47:20Z"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"BafS"},"title":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake"],"value":"OpenAI proposes 5% stake to Trump administration to ease Washington pressure"},"url":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["openai","stake","us","government"],"value":"https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/02/openai-proposes-us-government-own-5percent-stake-to-address-political-blowback.html"}},"_tags":["story","author_BafS","story_48759153"],"author":"BafS","children":[48759192,48759555,48760780],"created_at":"2026-07-02T10:23:58Z","created_at_i":1782987838,"num_comments":3,"objectID":"48759153","points":8,"story_id":48759153,"title":"OpenAI proposes 5% stake to Trump administration to ease Washington pressure","updated_at":"2026-07-03T03:12:24Z","url":"https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/02/openai-proposes-us-government-own-5percent-stake-to-address-political-blowback.html"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"karma_daemon"},"title":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us"],"value":"OpenAI Proposes Giving US Govt. 5% Stake"},"url":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-02/openai-proposes-giving-the-us-government-a-5-stake-ft-says"}},"_tags":["story","author_karma_daemon","story_48762415"],"author":"karma_daemon","children":[48762430],"created_at":"2026-07-02T14:44:25Z","created_at_i":1783003465,"num_comments":1,"objectID":"48762415","points":1,"story_id":48762415,"title":"OpenAI Proposes Giving US Govt. 5% Stake","updated_at":"2026-07-02T14:48:51Z","url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-02/openai-proposes-giving-the-us-government-a-5-stake-ft-says"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"satvikpendem"},"comment_text":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"OpenAI has ties to the government (via political donations) which likely will be getting that 5% stake too, so it is not just for Anthropic that the US could ban Chinese models. Consider, why wouldn't they when they already were considering it?
And you mention Hegseth but it was Lutnick at the Department of Commerce who banned Fable, so there are many competing parties in the government. Again, it is not just Anthropic who'd benefit from a Chinese model ban.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/17/us-deepseek-blacklist-cxmt-n..."},"story_title":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["5"],"value":"GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex"},"story_url":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"https://twitter.com/thsottiaux/status/2073933490513752151"}},"_tags":["comment","author_satvikpendem","story_48799614"],"author":"satvikpendem","comment_text":"OpenAI has ties to the government (via political donations) which likely will be getting that 5% stake too, so it is not just for Anthropic that the US could ban Chinese models. Consider, why wouldn't they when they already were considering it?
And you mention Hegseth but it was Lutnick at the Department of Commerce who banned Fable, so there are many competing parties in the government. Again, it is not just Anthropic who'd benefit from a Chinese model ban.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/17/us-deepseek-blacklist-cxmt-n...","created_at":"2026-07-06T18:03:00Z","created_at_i":1783360980,"objectID":"48808238","parent_id":48807992,"story_id":48799614,"story_title":"GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex","story_url":"https://twitter.com/thsottiaux/status/2073933490513752151","updated_at":"2026-07-06T18:05:34Z"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"bigyabai"},"comment_text":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"> You can't simultaneously project a hypothetical Chinese capability that it hasn't proven it can do (develop the leading models)
China does lead the frontier. If you're a cybersecurity researcher, a biologist or work in any other censored field, there's nothing that the American models can do for you. The frontier effectively begins where abliterated models can be distributed, and America releases none of them at-scale.
You can't just claim that cybersecurity and biology are non-factors in this race. There are objectively areas where Chinese AI is the only frontier; American regulation is entirely to blame.
> It's like, the thing is so valuable you can't even buy it.
We have a word for this in software actually, it's called "vaporware" in modern parlance. Good luck convincing people that Xenix and Duke Nukem Forever are too valuable for the public to own.
America's stance towards legitimate cybersecurity research is why American businesses like HuggingFace do their incident responses with GLM-5.2. If American AI is "so valuable" that people can't buy the frontier to fix legitimate problems, then China wins by default. It's already happening in several industry-leading American firms, they're not paying Anthropic or OpenAI to fix their real issues.
> Ok we'll just copy their stuff then who cares because apparently bleeding edge model development doesn't matter.
Yes, do this. OpenAI and Anthropic will inevitably turn to the US government for funding, which means that taxpayers will be financially supporting model training for weights that they won't own. If the purpose of AI research is to entrench the monopoly on power, then I would genuinely advocate for all taxpayer funds to be withheld from OpenAI and Anthropic since their products aren't contributing to the public good. There is literally no reason to copy China's state-driven investment strategy if we're not also going to copy the public ownership model. You might as well let China do the frontier research, and let America focus on hand-wringing over the consequences and writing censorship laws to prevent citizens from accessing uncensored Chinese models.
After all, it's where we're headed regardless of what China does. Anthropic, OpenAI and the current US administration have made that clear.
> Why would I trust your comment over Google's business decisions?
My comment doesn't contradict Google's business decisions. It's not an oxymoron to highlight a bad decision as part of a grander AI strategy; but so far you've failed to engage on the actual grounds of FAANG's strategies itself. You're just insisting that American businesses are right because they spend a lot of money, while failing to acknowledge that "spending lots of money" is how most financial crises start. Therefore, it seems appropriate that we acknowledge wasted investments if we want American businesses to stop digging a hole they can't get out of. The onus falls on you to argue that things like OpenCL should have died, or that the Neural Engine was the right choice for millions of iPhone owners.
The point I'm making in this regard isn't complex, you're just offended by the notion of these businesses making wrong decisions. Metal Compute Shaders is not an industry-leading inference solution. It just isn't, the free market already decided. Apple could have increased their addressable market during the datacenter boom if they supported an agnostic GPGPU compute layer like OpenCL in Apple Silicon; or, they could have freed the PCIe lanes on the rackmount Mac Pro to make it a legitimate CUDA host in a world spending trillions on ARM datacenter hardware. Instead they abandoned Khronos group, insisted on standardizing around Metal, and discontinued the Mac Pro.
Apple made some right decisions here. They also burned billions of dollars in R&D and abandoned a trillion-dollar market segment by discontinuing the Mac Pro. Despite being the most advanced ARM core designer in the world, Apple was enamored by B2C service profits and actively avoided any genuine competition that would pressure Nvidia or Apple themselves to invest in frontier research. As the richest American tech company, Apple completely failed to pivot their stack into AI inference even 10 years after CoreML was reluctantly introduced.
Compare this to how, for instance, Huawei works, and you'll see pretty quickly why ego-poisoned businesses like Apple are the antithesis of free market competition. Apple doesn't want to compete, they want to make money. They love ignoring genuinely innovative technology
> I'm not sure why you and others seem to assume that China [...] can take some action and that we can't also take some action in response
Well, China has a centrally planned economy for one. There are objectively things that their government can finance that the United States cannot reciprocally copy."},"story_title":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"It's not a fear of \"AI communism\"; it's a fear of competitive market capitalism"},"story_url":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2026/07/its-not-fear-of-ai-communism-its-fear.html"}},"_tags":["comment","author_bigyabai","story_49169227"],"author":"bigyabai","children":[49191821],"comment_text":"> You can't simultaneously project a hypothetical Chinese capability that it hasn't proven it can do (develop the leading models)
China does lead the frontier. If you're a cybersecurity researcher, a biologist or work in any other censored field, there's nothing that the American models can do for you. The frontier effectively begins where abliterated models can be distributed, and America releases none of them at-scale.
You can't just claim that cybersecurity and biology are non-factors in this race. There are objectively areas where Chinese AI is the only frontier; American regulation is entirely to blame.
> It's like, the thing is so valuable you can't even buy it.
We have a word for this in software actually, it's called "vaporware" in modern parlance. Good luck convincing people that Xenix and Duke Nukem Forever are too valuable for the public to own.
America's stance towards legitimate cybersecurity research is why American businesses like HuggingFace do their incident responses with GLM-5.2. If American AI is "so valuable" that people can't buy the frontier to fix legitimate problems, then China wins by default. It's already happening in several industry-leading American firms, they're not paying Anthropic or OpenAI to fix their real issues.
> Ok we'll just copy their stuff then who cares because apparently bleeding edge model development doesn't matter.
Yes, do this. OpenAI and Anthropic will inevitably turn to the US government for funding, which means that taxpayers will be financially supporting model training for weights that they won't own. If the purpose of AI research is to entrench the monopoly on power, then I would genuinely advocate for all taxpayer funds to be withheld from OpenAI and Anthropic since their products aren't contributing to the public good. There is literally no reason to copy China's state-driven investment strategy if we're not also going to copy the public ownership model. You might as well let China do the frontier research, and let America focus on hand-wringing over the consequences and writing censorship laws to prevent citizens from accessing uncensored Chinese models.
After all, it's where we're headed regardless of what China does. Anthropic, OpenAI and the current US administration have made that clear.
> Why would I trust your comment over Google's business decisions?
My comment doesn't contradict Google's business decisions. It's not an oxymoron to highlight a bad decision as part of a grander AI strategy; but so far you've failed to engage on the actual grounds of FAANG's strategies itself. You're just insisting that American businesses are right because they spend a lot of money, while failing to acknowledge that "spending lots of money" is how most financial crises start. Therefore, it seems appropriate that we acknowledge wasted investments if we want American businesses to stop digging a hole they can't get out of. The onus falls on you to argue that things like OpenCL should have died, or that the Neural Engine was the right choice for millions of iPhone owners.
The point I'm making in this regard isn't complex, you're just offended by the notion of these businesses making wrong decisions. Metal Compute Shaders is not an industry-leading inference solution. It just isn't, the free market already decided. Apple could have increased their addressable market during the datacenter boom if they supported an agnostic GPGPU compute layer like OpenCL in Apple Silicon; or, they could have freed the PCIe lanes on the rackmount Mac Pro to make it a legitimate CUDA host in a world spending trillions on ARM datacenter hardware. Instead they abandoned Khronos group, insisted on standardizing around Metal, and discontinued the Mac Pro.
Apple made some right decisions here. They also burned billions of dollars in R&D and abandoned a trillion-dollar market segment by discontinuing the Mac Pro. Despite being the most advanced ARM core designer in the world, Apple was enamored by B2C service profits and actively avoided any genuine competition that would pressure Nvidia or Apple themselves to invest in frontier research. As the richest American tech company, Apple completely failed to pivot their stack into AI inference even 10 years after CoreML was reluctantly introduced.
Compare this to how, for instance, Huawei works, and you'll see pretty quickly why ego-poisoned businesses like Apple are the antithesis of free market competition. Apple doesn't want to compete, they want to make money. They love ignoring genuinely innovative technology
> I'm not sure why you and others seem to assume that China [...] can take some action and that we can't also take some action in response
Well, China has a centrally planned economy for one. There are objectively things that their government can finance that the United States cannot reciprocally copy.","created_at":"2026-08-05T17:47:13Z","created_at_i":1785952033,"objectID":"49186317","parent_id":49174843,"story_id":49169227,"story_title":"It's not a fear of \"AI communism\"; it's a fear of competitive market capitalism","story_url":"http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2026/07/its-not-fear-of-ai-communism-its-fear.html","updated_at":"2026-08-06T02:50:21Z"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"wasfgwp"},"comment_text":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"> costs hundreds of billions to develop - to BOTH US and China
OpenAI and Anthropic are extremely bloated compared to the Chinese labs. They have thousands of extremely well paid people working for them. Deepseek I think has a couple of hundred and I doubt they are paid a lot.
Of course compute for training is expensive but I doubt that\u2019s necessarily the overwhelming majority of the operating costs for Anthropic/OpenAI
> on a market economy and non-state-owned labs
Sure the private companies developing these models are heavily interlinked with and even maybe partially owned by the government. But its a matter of degree. Since that\u2019s the situation in the US similar in how these companies both shape government policy directly and in how the government is constantly intervening and shaping their behavior outside of any regulatory framework.
The US government is both heavily protectionist and interventionist these days.
> next guy
Good try GPT-5\u2026"},"story_title":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["government"],"value":"Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI"},"story_url":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/22/startup-founders-urge-trump-not-to-shut-off-chinese-open-weight-ai-01008992"}},"_tags":["comment","author_wasfgwp","story_49023016"],"author":"wasfgwp","comment_text":"> costs hundreds of billions to develop - to BOTH US and China
OpenAI and Anthropic are extremely bloated compared to the Chinese labs. They have thousands of extremely well paid people working for them. Deepseek I think has a couple of hundred and I doubt they are paid a lot.
Of course compute for training is expensive but I doubt that\u2019s necessarily the overwhelming majority of the operating costs for Anthropic/OpenAI
> on a market economy and non-state-owned labs
Sure the private companies developing these models are heavily interlinked with and even maybe partially owned by the government. But its a matter of degree. Since that\u2019s the situation in the US similar in how these companies both shape government policy directly and in how the government is constantly intervening and shaping their behavior outside of any regulatory framework.
The US government is both heavily protectionist and interventionist these days.
> next guy
Good try GPT-5\u2026","created_at":"2026-07-24T14:04:02Z","created_at_i":1784901842,"objectID":"49035832","parent_id":49028974,"story_id":49023016,"story_title":"Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI","story_url":"https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/22/startup-founders-urge-trump-not-to-shut-off-chinese-open-weight-ai-01008992","updated_at":"2026-07-24T14:07:53Z"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"logicallee"},"story_text":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"My fianc\u00e9e is about to be fired from her federal job over her complaints for accessiblity [1], it looks like if her federal email address is disconnected (starts bouncing) the only way to reach her will be for me to call every household in her state until I reach her mom. (She'll obviously be the only special needs employee who was just fired from federal government and whose fianc\u00e9 can't reach her, not a difficult needle to find in a haystack.)
This is about 5,000 hours of calls and it's a very simple script, the OpenAI interface can easily handle transcripts until I reach her, so I would like to automate it until I can connect with her mom.
But since we will lose half our family's paycheck after she is fired, I would like to see if I can get a job that can pay for both of us, so I would like to simultaneously transition to working for an AI company that does accessibility robocalls, since I have a personal motivation to work in this area, and I think it will make my task easier as well, and I think it will let me complete the task more easily.
- Are there any companies working on robocalls for accessibility that could be a good match for a hands-on engineering applicant with AI, coding, and project management experience?
Thanks for any tips of companies that might be hiring.
[1] Her boss: "One gs 5 employees is extremely problematic and I cannot speak, email or even walk by her office without her calling the union, making an EEO complaint, IG complaint, Office of Special Counsel complaint. If I give her any direction, work assignment or God forbid feedback she claims retaliation. As of now- she has not been successful in any of these complaints. " (the boss may have changed one or two small details to keep it anonymous.)"},"title":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"Ask HN: Are any companies working on robocalls for accessibility?"}},"_tags":["story","author_logicallee","story_38312557","ask_hn"],"author":"logicallee","children":[38312896,38313821],"created_at":"2023-11-17T23:58:27Z","created_at_i":1700265507,"num_comments":5,"objectID":"38312557","points":1,"story_id":38312557,"story_text":"My fianc\u00e9e is about to be fired from her federal job over her complaints for accessiblity [1], it looks like if her federal email address is disconnected (starts bouncing) the only way to reach her will be for me to call every household in her state until I reach her mom. (She'll obviously be the only special needs employee who was just fired from federal government and whose fianc\u00e9 can't reach her, not a difficult needle to find in a haystack.)
This is about 5,000 hours of calls and it's a very simple script, the OpenAI interface can easily handle transcripts until I reach her, so I would like to automate it until I can connect with her mom.
But since we will lose half our family's paycheck after she is fired, I would like to see if I can get a job that can pay for both of us, so I would like to simultaneously transition to working for an AI company that does accessibility robocalls, since I have a personal motivation to work in this area, and I think it will make my task easier as well, and I think it will let me complete the task more easily.
- Are there any companies working on robocalls for accessibility that could be a good match for a hands-on engineering applicant with AI, coding, and project management experience?
Thanks for any tips of companies that might be hiring.
[1] Her boss: "One gs 5 employees is extremely problematic and I cannot speak, email or even walk by her office without her calling the union, making an EEO complaint, IG complaint, Office of Special Counsel complaint. If I give her any direction, work assignment or God forbid feedback she claims retaliation. As of now- she has not been successful in any of these complaints. " (the boss may have changed one or two small details to keep it anonymous.)","title":"Ask HN: Are any companies working on robocalls for accessibility?","updated_at":"2024-09-20T15:36:09Z"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"Buttons840"},"comment_text":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"I have several thoughts about this, which I'll just iterate:
1) US export bans have made it so that Chinese companies have to compete using less-than-state-of-the-art hardware. This has forced Chinese companies to build more cost efficient models. Whereas, US companies have moreso tried to be state of the art by spending more money than anyone else on state-of-the-art hardware.
2) Xi Jinping has called for more open AI models (not to be confused with the closed models of OpenAI), and I'm happy to see a powerful world leader advocating for open-weight AI models. Whereas, the US seems likely to just ban models.
3) My impression is that, if China surpasses the US in AI development, there will basically be nothing that the US does better than the rest of the world--except for military spending--we spend a lot, but we don't necessarily spend well (something something Iran). I mean, if the US is no longer a tech leader in the world, like... what are we a leader at? Manufacturing? Healthcare? LOL. Are we a leader in any industry or by any metric? I wonder if China is attempting to remove the last jewel in the USA's crown with these AI releases.
4) It must be refreshing for companies to have access to a new model that isn't going to get pulled because the government bans it 2 days after release. And it's open-weight so it wont go away--amazing--what a shift in the market.
5) If it becomes clear that open-weight models are the future of AI, will that pop a huge bubble in the US economy? Maybe. But, on the other hand, these companies aren't just training AIs, they are also building data centers which will remain valuable no matter what happens."},"story_title":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"Kimi K3 Is Competitive with Fable; Kimi K3 and Fable Is SoTA"},"story_url":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"https://fireworks.ai/blog/kimik3-fable"}},"_tags":["comment","author_Buttons840","story_48999291"],"author":"Buttons840","children":[48999872,49000140],"comment_text":"I have several thoughts about this, which I'll just iterate:
1) US export bans have made it so that Chinese companies have to compete using less-than-state-of-the-art hardware. This has forced Chinese companies to build more cost efficient models. Whereas, US companies have moreso tried to be state of the art by spending more money than anyone else on state-of-the-art hardware.
2) Xi Jinping has called for more open AI models (not to be confused with the closed models of OpenAI), and I'm happy to see a powerful world leader advocating for open-weight AI models. Whereas, the US seems likely to just ban models.
3) My impression is that, if China surpasses the US in AI development, there will basically be nothing that the US does better than the rest of the world--except for military spending--we spend a lot, but we don't necessarily spend well (something something Iran). I mean, if the US is no longer a tech leader in the world, like... what are we a leader at? Manufacturing? Healthcare? LOL. Are we a leader in any industry or by any metric? I wonder if China is attempting to remove the last jewel in the USA's crown with these AI releases.
4) It must be refreshing for companies to have access to a new model that isn't going to get pulled because the government bans it 2 days after release. And it's open-weight so it wont go away--amazing--what a shift in the market.
5) If it becomes clear that open-weight models are the future of AI, will that pop a huge bubble in the US economy? Maybe. But, on the other hand, these companies aren't just training AIs, they are also building data centers which will remain valuable no matter what happens.","created_at":"2026-07-21T23:31:07Z","created_at_i":1784676667,"objectID":"48999805","parent_id":48999291,"story_id":48999291,"story_title":"Kimi K3 Is Competitive with Fable; Kimi K3 and Fable Is SoTA","story_url":"https://fireworks.ai/blog/kimik3-fable","updated_at":"2026-07-22T23:24:18Z"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"sigbottle"},"comment_text":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"A lot of philosophy starts from the fundamental observation that, to solve a problem, you could either solve a problem, or state that the problem is ill-posed in some way (and dissolve it). Either answer the question, or question the question.
It's not a new problem in some sense. If you've dealt with really smart but really arrogant friends, they might jump ahead 10 steps and assume your rebuttal, posit theirs, assume your rebuttal to their posit, etc. etc. without... actually taking the time to listen carefully. On the national scale, this looks like forced trust in government authorities about what is "objectively best".
People need to get it through their skulls that, even if an AI, or any intelligence, could even solve the damn Riemann Hypothesis: if it's wrong, it's wrong. Of course, I think all of us know the objection - we see it on hackernews all the time. "You guys are just stupid contrarians who can't understand AI's deep reasoning". OK. The second inference? "therefore you are unable to govern yourselves properly - your concerns are all fallacies, misunderstandings, bad for you, etc.".
You might think that the second inference is extreme and nobody actually believes that, but as always, it's a gradient. Before AI, you might've had an extremely strong sense of self. Now? You look at OpenAI solving open math problems left and right on a public foundation model, and you think, "Maybe I should just trust it more. If I spend cycles thinking, it's probably going to outdo me anyways." The AI model silently makes 5 different assumptions and transformations? "Well, maybe it was rational in the space of tradeoffs to do that. The AI knows best, after all". You might be thinking of an architecture with 5 different key constraints based on lived experience, in which the AI keeps misunderstanding. "Oh, well, this genius-level mathematician/programmer AI isn't understanding my words - surely I must be mistaken, right? It's only humble to think that way".
I can't convince people otherwise though. After all, I can't "prove" that you should have a backbone when talking to AI. it could just as easily be "you're arrogant, this machine is in the top of all academic fields and is coming for all white collar jobs, who's to say you're right about anything?" All I can say is, there's a reason why Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors."},"story_title":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners"},"story_url":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/kaggle-measuring-agi/discussion/724918#3498423"}},"_tags":["comment","author_sigbottle","story_48946010"],"author":"sigbottle","comment_text":"A lot of philosophy starts from the fundamental observation that, to solve a problem, you could either solve a problem, or state that the problem is ill-posed in some way (and dissolve it). Either answer the question, or question the question.
It's not a new problem in some sense. If you've dealt with really smart but really arrogant friends, they might jump ahead 10 steps and assume your rebuttal, posit theirs, assume your rebuttal to their posit, etc. etc. without... actually taking the time to listen carefully. On the national scale, this looks like forced trust in government authorities about what is "objectively best".
People need to get it through their skulls that, even if an AI, or any intelligence, could even solve the damn Riemann Hypothesis: if it's wrong, it's wrong. Of course, I think all of us know the objection - we see it on hackernews all the time. "You guys are just stupid contrarians who can't understand AI's deep reasoning". OK. The second inference? "therefore you are unable to govern yourselves properly - your concerns are all fallacies, misunderstandings, bad for you, etc.".
You might think that the second inference is extreme and nobody actually believes that, but as always, it's a gradient. Before AI, you might've had an extremely strong sense of self. Now? You look at OpenAI solving open math problems left and right on a public foundation model, and you think, "Maybe I should just trust it more. If I spend cycles thinking, it's probably going to outdo me anyways." The AI model silently makes 5 different assumptions and transformations? "Well, maybe it was rational in the space of tradeoffs to do that. The AI knows best, after all". You might be thinking of an architecture with 5 different key constraints based on lived experience, in which the AI keeps misunderstanding. "Oh, well, this genius-level mathematician/programmer AI isn't understanding my words - surely I must be mistaken, right? It's only humble to think that way".
I can't convince people otherwise though. After all, I can't "prove" that you should have a backbone when talking to AI. it could just as easily be "you're arrogant, this machine is in the top of all academic fields and is coming for all white collar jobs, who's to say you're right about anything?" All I can say is, there's a reason why Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors.","created_at":"2026-07-17T13:24:14Z","created_at_i":1784294654,"objectID":"48947111","parent_id":48946549,"story_id":48946010,"story_title":"Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners","story_url":"https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/kaggle-measuring-agi/discussion/724918#3498423","updated_at":"2026-07-18T17:34:16Z"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"achow"},"comment_text":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"> Altman and other OpenAI executives have suggested that each of America\u2019s leading AI developers allot 5 per cent of their equity to a vehicle like the Alaska Permanent Fund, a sovereign fund that invests the state\u2019s oil wealth into stocks and pays dividends to the state government and residents.
Sounds like it is for benefit of public rather than govt' office, and this would continue to benefit public even after current US administration is out of picture."},"story_title":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["openai","5"],"value":"OpenAI proposes handing Trump administration 5% stake"},"story_url":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"https://www.ft.com/content/7c803eab-8e80-4431-9a87-e943bf00e00b"}},"_tags":["comment","author_achow","story_48756702"],"author":"achow","comment_text":"> Altman and other OpenAI executives have suggested that each of America\u2019s leading AI developers allot 5 per cent of their equity to a vehicle like the Alaska Permanent Fund, a sovereign fund that invests the state\u2019s oil wealth into stocks and pays dividends to the state government and residents.
Sounds like it is for benefit of public rather than govt' office, and this would continue to benefit public even after current US administration is out of picture.","created_at":"2026-07-02T17:34:36Z","created_at_i":1783013676,"objectID":"48764767","parent_id":48758926,"story_id":48756702,"story_title":"OpenAI proposes handing Trump administration 5% stake","story_url":"https://www.ft.com/content/7c803eab-8e80-4431-9a87-e943bf00e00b","updated_at":"2026-07-02T17:36:51Z"},{"_highlightResult":{"author":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"talldayo"},"comment_text":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"full","matchedWords":["openai","5","stake","us","government"],"value":"> And most of that engineering has text-parts interfacing with electro-mechanic parts. Fuck around with one and find out.
To my knowledge that is certainly not true with airplanes, pre fly-by-wire or post-digital. Early airplanes relied entirely on mechanical trim and avionics to prevent unstable flight, with absolutely no "text-parts" beyond written instructions and radio callsigns. Later on maybe, but the FAA very strictly regulates the text that I think you might as well just call it code. I suspect that beyond street labels, self-driving cars aren't interfacing with "text-parts" all that much either.
> So once some rich folks in the Middle East, China or Texas buy enough hardware to run their own LLMs without limitations
"Once"? This is today. Actually it was 10 years ago; text transformers have been "unlimited" since we had access to hardware that enabled it. More than 5 years ago BERT was documented and released under Open Source, and GPT-2 followed not far after. Now we have Llama, Phi, open derivatives LORAs and finetunes of all of them, and we're still waiting for the damages to appear? I just don't buy it. Any potential threats would have shown themselves by now, and very clearly we're starting to find that having GPT-4 in your pocket is not remotely equivalent to hiring Einstein for your private lab. As a matter of fact Einstein would probably kick out the LLM for wasting his precious time.
> We have governments and corporations that build and run instructions through LLMs to support sides of conflicts with questionable motives
That's not even the scary part. For over 40 years the United States has operationalized autonomous kill-chains for air-to-air and air-to-ground mission profiles. A computer can track, interrogate, identify and kill an unidentified aircraft using the Patriot Missile system with zero human intervention. 20 SAM TELs can be identified in a crowd of vehicles and automatically prosecuted with a single CBU-97 Sensor Fused munition. Putting an LLM in a bomb would be a mercy to the people you drop it on; the US (and all serious military forces) are only interested in AI that works. LLMs aren't yet operationalized because, well, they don't work. Unless you're a homicidal maniac-state a-la Israel with their Lavander system.
> Censoring training data while growing the codes' range of possible and human readable output only exacerbates the problem.
> Gain of Function studies should come to mind.
They don't. I'm not sure what your proximity is to the computer science world, but we don't have to worry about AI poisoning the hashed/encrypted copies of backed-up text. Certainly OpenAI and Meta doesn't; if you piss and moan about their "censored" training data (lol) they'll compose you a sad symphony for violin on the world's smallest LLM."},"story_title":{"fullyHighlighted":false,"matchLevel":"partial","matchedWords":["us"],"value":"A.I. May Save Us, or May Construct Viruses to Kill Us"},"story_url":{"matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[],"value":"https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/opinion/ai-advances-risks.html"}},"_tags":["comment","author_talldayo","story_41096929"],"author":"talldayo","children":[41106641],"comment_text":"> And most of that engineering has text-parts interfacing with electro-mechanic parts. Fuck around with one and find out.
To my knowledge that is certainly not true with airplanes, pre fly-by-wire or post-digital. Early airplanes relied entirely on mechanical trim and avionics to prevent unstable flight, with absolutely no "text-parts" beyond written instructions and radio callsigns. Later on maybe, but the FAA very strictly regulates the text that I think you might as well just call it code. I suspect that beyond street labels, self-driving cars aren't interfacing with "text-parts" all that much either.
> So once some rich folks in the Middle East, China or Texas buy enough hardware to run their own LLMs without limitations
"Once"? This is today. Actually it was 10 years ago; text transformers have been "unlimited" since we had access to hardware that enabled it. More than 5 years ago BERT was documented and released under Open Source, and GPT-2 followed not far after. Now we have Llama, Phi, open derivatives LORAs and finetunes of all of them, and we're still waiting for the damages to appear? I just don't buy it. Any potential threats would have shown themselves by now, and very clearly we're starting to find that having GPT-4 in your pocket is not remotely equivalent to hiring Einstein for your private lab. As a matter of fact Einstein would probably kick out the LLM for wasting his precious time.
> We have governments and corporations that build and run instructions through LLMs to support sides of conflicts with questionable motives
That's not even the scary part. For over 40 years the United States has operationalized autonomous kill-chains for air-to-air and air-to-ground mission profiles. A computer can track, interrogate, identify and kill an unidentified aircraft using the Patriot Missile system with zero human intervention. 20 SAM TELs can be identified in a crowd of vehicles and automatically prosecuted with a single CBU-97 Sensor Fused munition. Putting an LLM in a bomb would be a mercy to the people you drop it on; the US (and all serious military forces) are only interested in AI that works. LLMs aren't yet operationalized because, well, they don't work. Unless you're a homicidal maniac-state a-la Israel with their Lavander system.
> Censoring training data while growing the codes' range of possible and human readable output only exacerbates the problem.
> Gain of Function studies should come to mind.
They don't. I'm not sure what your proximity is to the computer science world, but we don't have to worry about AI poisoning the hashed/encrypted copies of backed-up text. Certainly OpenAI and Meta doesn't; if you piss and moan about their "censored" training data (lol) they'll compose you a sad symphony for violin on the world's smallest LLM.","created_at":"2024-07-29T18:20:16Z","created_at_i":1722277216,"objectID":"41102507","parent_id":41098468,"story_id":41096929,"story_title":"A.I. May Save Us, or May Construct Viruses to Kill Us","story_url":"https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/opinion/ai-advances-risks.html","updated_at":"2024-09-20T17:29:21Z"}],"hitsPerPage":20,"nbHits":13,"nbPages":1,"page":0,"params":"query=OpenAI+5%25+stake+US+government&advancedSyntax=true&analyticsTags=backend","processingTimeMS":62,"processingTimingsMS":{"_request":{"roundTrip":19},"afterFetch":{"format":{"highlighting":1,"total":2},"merge":{"mergeLoop":{"prepareNextHit":1,"total":1},"total":1},"total":1},"fetch":{"query":15,"scanning":39,"total":55},"getIdx":{"load":{"dicts":1,"gens":2,"total":4},"total":4},"total":62},"query":"OpenAI 5% stake US government","serverTimeMS":64}