Keep in mind this is just the lobbying that requires disclosure, which is a tiny sliver of the overall policy effort. There's a whole constellation of consultants, think tanks, industry groups, "grasstops" organizers, push pollsters, etc. that are the real (undisclosed) iceberg under the surface.
For example, here's an example of an effort to persuade Congress not to update copyright laws to account for model training, which was only revealed because of metadata accidentally included in a PDF file. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/23/tech-lawyer-ai-lett...
In 2025, being able to afford lobbies is the barrier of entry. “Playing fair” and simply building better products isn’t exactly the name of the game. If it were, they would’ve been a lot less billionaires at inauguration. OpenAI didn’t “invent” this, they’re just playing the same game everyone else is.
This reminds me of when Walter Gilbert's team faced challenges in cloning the human insulin gene due to a moratorium on recombinant DNA research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which forced them to relocate to England. This relocation impacted their progress, allowing the team from Genentech and the City of Hope National Medical Center to successfully clone the gene first in 1978, leading to the production of the first genetically engineered drug, human insulin.
Gilbert still got the Nobel Prize for his work sequencing of nucleotides.
Researchers in AI, likewise, will have to relocate to more favorable countries losing precious time.
Made me think what Mark Andreeson said in a recent interview.
> They said, look, AI is a technology basically, that the government is gonna completely control. This is not gonna be a startup thing. They, they actually said flat out to us, don't do AI startups like, don't fund AI startups. It's not something that we're gonna allow to happen. They're not gonna be allowed to exist. There's no point.
> They basically said AI is gonna be a game of two or three big companies working closely with the government. And we're gonna basically wrap them in a, you know, they, I'm paraphrasing, but we're gonna basically wrap them in a government cocoon. We're gonna protect them from competition, we're gonna control them, we're gonna dictate what they do.
>And then I said, I don't understand how you're gonna lock this down so much because like the math for you, AI is like out there and it's being taught everywhere. And you know, they literally said, well, you know, during the Cold War we, we classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the research community and like entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't proceed. And that if we decide we need to, we're gonna do the same thing to to the math underneath ai.
> And I said, I've just learned two very important things. 'cause I wasn't aware of the former and I wasn't aware that you were, you know, even conceiving of doing it to the latter. And so they basically just said, yeah, we're gonna look, we're gonna take total control the entire thing and just don't start startups.
If this is true, makes sense for OpenAI and other to ramp up lobbying to be one of the two or three big companies. In another subsequent interivew Altman denied he was ever in such a meeting.
This is so clearly a complete lie - in what universe is some top government official in the United States telling corporations to a) fall behind competing nations in advanced technology, b) set back our technological edge in the military, c) degrade the USA ability to spy on and control information access/controls in other countries, or d) do anything other than fish for an insider trading opportunity.
Not sure how that would work exactly. The math behind transformer models is really basic. And the world is different now than it was during the cold war. There was no internet, for example. Also, given that this was during an interview in which MA was criticizing the Biden administration, I'm assuming he was telling half truths to make Democrats look like bogeymen as all Trump crazed lunatics tend to do.
With so much talk about regulation and talk of complete control of the technology by govt, it would be very foolish for them not to be spending a lot of time and money trying to influence policy on it.
> they literally said, well, you know, during the Cold War we, we classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the research community and like entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't proceed
What are the odds that deep within US research labs, we have some crazy breakthrough tech tucked away? Like antigravity drives or force fields or whatever - complete with brand new breakthrough physical theories to support them.
I'd guess suppressing such a breakthrough without raising suspicion wouldn't be hard - probably only a few top guys can make the intellectual jumps to derive such theories and the experimental setup to validate them could very well cost billions.
The US government could just quietly whisk away the top talent into some secret lab, put out some fake papers showing this avenue of research is not noteworthy and not fund further public research in the area.
I call bullshit. I don’t really believe they’re saying don’t fund startups. I also don’t believe for a second that they think they can stunt progress. We didn’t have the internet in the 60s.
For context, Andreessen is talking here about the Biden administration, and his revulsion to this approach is why he endorsed Trump:
> I, you know, look, and I would say like when we endorse Trump, we, we only did so on the basis of like tech policy. [...] Number two was ai, where I became very scared earlier this year that they were gonna do the same thing to AI that they did to crypto.
Well, agreed for the common Joe, but that still allows someone with a net worth in the tens of Billions to throw money around. Especially because these people have a clear conflict of interest.
They should ban money contributions completely. Each party gets the same budget (say 10M$ and you run your campaign until you have money and that's it).
You as a citizen wants to donate? Go and collect signatures, spread the word or stuff like that, but no money (IMHO).
We could definitely improve the arrangement of chairs on the deck of the Titanic, but we can't even get 50% of the country to recognize the most obvious grift in American history.
I think that humanity has failed The Reverse Turing's Test. We're being bamboozled by the high quality illusion made by AI. I hope we won't end up in a world where an official will put us into jail, answering our "why" questions with short "the ChatGPT told me so"
United Healthcare already got caught using an LLM to make life or death coverage decisions. IMHO that's both worse than your nightmare scenario and it's already happening.
It does seem like the emerging startup powerhouses like OpenAI, Palantir, Anduril, etc. are all very deep in the lobbying game. I wonder if they’ll open up government contracts and regulations to a more democratic and competitive process, or just become the new incumbents holding all the power.
> Altman proposed to the Biden administration the construction of multiple five-gigawatt data centers, which would each consume as much electricity as New York City.
If this is what it takes to bring nuclear back, maybe it's worth it.
Would any money spent during the next four years from ClosedAI be money down the drain when Musk is whispering in Trump's ear? If Musk says no to whatever ClosedAI wants, then that's what Trump will do.
I remember some folks saying things like "Trump's already a billionaire, he can't be bought". But him or another one, we were always headed towards oligarchy. And I really don't know how we're supposed to go back.
Keep in mind this is just the lobbying that requires disclosure, which is a tiny sliver of the overall policy effort. There's a whole constellation of consultants, think tanks, industry groups, "grasstops" organizers, push pollsters, etc. that are the real (undisclosed) iceberg under the surface.
For example, here's an example of an effort to persuade Congress not to update copyright laws to account for model training, which was only revealed because of metadata accidentally included in a PDF file. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/23/tech-lawyer-ai-lett...
Here’s a firm that lobbies for pardons from Trump.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/01/trump-tied-lobbyist...
Ofc... it's easier to create legal barriers to entry than to offer a better product than the competition :)
In 2025, being able to afford lobbies is the barrier of entry. “Playing fair” and simply building better products isn’t exactly the name of the game. If it were, they would’ve been a lot less billionaires at inauguration. OpenAI didn’t “invent” this, they’re just playing the same game everyone else is.
This reminds me of when Walter Gilbert's team faced challenges in cloning the human insulin gene due to a moratorium on recombinant DNA research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which forced them to relocate to England. This relocation impacted their progress, allowing the team from Genentech and the City of Hope National Medical Center to successfully clone the gene first in 1978, leading to the production of the first genetically engineered drug, human insulin.
Gilbert still got the Nobel Prize for his work sequencing of nucleotides.
Researchers in AI, likewise, will have to relocate to more favorable countries losing precious time.
https://dnalc.cshl.edu/view/15258-Government-restrictions-on...
Why is time precious here?
They better hurry if they want to be the team that creates the species that replaces us.
> Researchers in AI, likewise, will have to relocate to more favorable countries losing precious time.
They are losing time anyway. They can talk to Musk to put them on the next Starship to Mars. /s
Classic case of "pulling up the ladder behind oneself".
Probably AI will be a more competitive market than he and his investors had hoped for.
Made me think what Mark Andreeson said in a recent interview.
> They said, look, AI is a technology basically, that the government is gonna completely control. This is not gonna be a startup thing. They, they actually said flat out to us, don't do AI startups like, don't fund AI startups. It's not something that we're gonna allow to happen. They're not gonna be allowed to exist. There's no point.
> They basically said AI is gonna be a game of two or three big companies working closely with the government. And we're gonna basically wrap them in a, you know, they, I'm paraphrasing, but we're gonna basically wrap them in a government cocoon. We're gonna protect them from competition, we're gonna control them, we're gonna dictate what they do.
>And then I said, I don't understand how you're gonna lock this down so much because like the math for you, AI is like out there and it's being taught everywhere. And you know, they literally said, well, you know, during the Cold War we, we classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the research community and like entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't proceed. And that if we decide we need to, we're gonna do the same thing to to the math underneath ai.
> And I said, I've just learned two very important things. 'cause I wasn't aware of the former and I wasn't aware that you were, you know, even conceiving of doing it to the latter. And so they basically just said, yeah, we're gonna look, we're gonna take total control the entire thing and just don't start startups.
If this is true, makes sense for OpenAI and other to ramp up lobbying to be one of the two or three big companies. In another subsequent interivew Altman denied he was ever in such a meeting.
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/118114058
> makes sense for OpenAI and other to ramp up lobbying to be one of the two or three big companies
The fact that Musk hates Altman, has the President's ear and has a competitor to Altman's main wealth engine surely also plays into the calculus.
This is so clearly a complete lie - in what universe is some top government official in the United States telling corporations to a) fall behind competing nations in advanced technology, b) set back our technological edge in the military, c) degrade the USA ability to spy on and control information access/controls in other countries, or d) do anything other than fish for an insider trading opportunity.
Interesting. How would that work?
The US certainly doesn't have a monopoly on the best scientists and engineers.
How long can the US control sufficient capacity of hardware? (Without unspeakable atrocities.)
Is the US planning to overwhelmingly outspend other countries?
Or make AI-control treaties. And we'll have AI states and non-AI states?
Not sure how that would work exactly. The math behind transformer models is really basic. And the world is different now than it was during the cold war. There was no internet, for example. Also, given that this was during an interview in which MA was criticizing the Biden administration, I'm assuming he was telling half truths to make Democrats look like bogeymen as all Trump crazed lunatics tend to do.
This is exactly the same thought I had.
With so much talk about regulation and talk of complete control of the technology by govt, it would be very foolish for them not to be spending a lot of time and money trying to influence policy on it.
Information wants to be free. If the US doesn't invest, others will.
Anyone else find him IMPOSSIBLE to listen to? He really needs a speaking coach.
You know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know...
> they literally said, well, you know, during the Cold War we, we classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the research community and like entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't proceed
What are the odds that deep within US research labs, we have some crazy breakthrough tech tucked away? Like antigravity drives or force fields or whatever - complete with brand new breakthrough physical theories to support them.
I'd guess suppressing such a breakthrough without raising suspicion wouldn't be hard - probably only a few top guys can make the intellectual jumps to derive such theories and the experimental setup to validate them could very well cost billions.
The US government could just quietly whisk away the top talent into some secret lab, put out some fake papers showing this avenue of research is not noteworthy and not fund further public research in the area.
Trump revoked Biden's AI executive order as one of the first things in the office
https://www.cio.com/article/3806594/trump-repeals-bidens-ai-...
I call bullshit. I don’t really believe they’re saying don’t fund startups. I also don’t believe for a second that they think they can stunt progress. We didn’t have the internet in the 60s.
Well that is honestly a bit of a relief. If the government wants to stymie innovation like this the product isn’t going to take my job anytime soon.
For context, Andreessen is talking here about the Biden administration, and his revulsion to this approach is why he endorsed Trump:
> I, you know, look, and I would say like when we endorse Trump, we, we only did so on the basis of like tech policy. [...] Number two was ai, where I became very scared earlier this year that they were gonna do the same thing to AI that they did to crypto.
How can you expect people to take your comment seriously if you can't even spell his name?
Honestly, nothing in US politics is going to get any better until we are able to completely outlaw non-individual campaign contributions.
Three of the individuals standing behind the president at inauguration have more wealth than the bottom 50% of people [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHH-KI2yk8s
Well, agreed for the common Joe, but that still allows someone with a net worth in the tens of Billions to throw money around. Especially because these people have a clear conflict of interest.
They should ban money contributions completely. Each party gets the same budget (say 10M$ and you run your campaign until you have money and that's it).
You as a citizen wants to donate? Go and collect signatures, spread the word or stuff like that, but no money (IMHO).
> nothing in US politics is going to get any better until we are able to completely outlaw non-individual campaign contributions
Banning corporate campaign donations is a good idea. It would have no effect on this news.
Even then nothing will get better.
How much can you give in relation to Kelcy Warren? Or Diane Hendricks? Or Linda McMahon?
And that's before we even get to Bezos or Musk.
We could definitely improve the arrangement of chairs on the deck of the Titanic, but we can't even get 50% of the country to recognize the most obvious grift in American history.
I think that humanity has failed The Reverse Turing's Test. We're being bamboozled by the high quality illusion made by AI. I hope we won't end up in a world where an official will put us into jail, answering our "why" questions with short "the ChatGPT told me so"
IBM’s 1979 slide should be the next amendment to the constitution. Only half joking
United Healthcare already got caught using an LLM to make life or death coverage decisions. IMHO that's both worse than your nightmare scenario and it's already happening.
It does seem like the emerging startup powerhouses like OpenAI, Palantir, Anduril, etc. are all very deep in the lobbying game. I wonder if they’ll open up government contracts and regulations to a more democratic and competitive process, or just become the new incumbents holding all the power.
Related: I didn’t see Sam Altman at the inauguration. Was he there?
Not in person, but his $1 million personal donation attended. https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/openai-ceo-sam-altman-dona...
I think he was. I saw photos of him there mingling with Jake and Logan Paul. Getting selfies together.
Looks like it is already paying dividends.
In the meantime, DeepSeek published their o1 competitor on huggingface and an API that costs 5-10% of OpenAI's o1.
Maybe Sam should give up his bribery world tour and focus on creating a better product?
The logical next step is to ban foreign AI products in US. I have no idea how they will pull it, but it’ll be fun to watch if it happens.
Was Citizens United a huge mistake?
> Altman proposed to the Biden administration the construction of multiple five-gigawatt data centers, which would each consume as much electricity as New York City.
If this is what it takes to bring nuclear back, maybe it's worth it.
Incidentally, Altman just jumped on the Trump train: https://www.advocate.com/news/sam-altman-stargate-donald-tru...
Do not use AI under the control of quislings and demagogues.
Would any money spent during the next four years from ClosedAI be money down the drain when Musk is whispering in Trump's ear? If Musk says no to whatever ClosedAI wants, then that's what Trump will do.
This admin bends to money. They all do, of course, but this one especially.
Maybe this whole late stage capitalism isn't the most efficient way to allocate resources after all...
I remember some folks saying things like "Trump's already a billionaire, he can't be bought". But him or another one, we were always headed towards oligarchy. And I really don't know how we're supposed to go back.
Ahhhh the regulatory capture part of modern giant startups.
[dead]
[flagged]