7 ms·

This seems like it will have pretty huge negative affects on startups needing to compete with 'trusted partners'

by andrewchambers 3mo ago

A_D_E_P_T 3mo ago
Startups don't have as much money to spend on lobbying and gifts, though.
- ares623 3mo ago
  Will startups be even a thing now that the VCs obviously just need to funnel all their money to 2 or so companies ad-infinitum for guaranteed returns.
  - airstrike 3mo ago
    The single most important question to be discussed on this website right now.
    - redcheeks 3mo ago
      Whatever happened to those network states? It's starting to look like it's them, UAE or Singapore
      - ajmurmann 3mo ago
        Well, the network states were supposed to be a social thing rather than a place, no? Free Cities movement is more focused on actual, physical places.
- slashdave 3mo ago
  Well... there are crypto startups, and perhaps a generous definition of "money"
  - tyre 3mo ago
    Crypto companies were built for anonymous transfers of wealth. It's why they are perfect for money laundering and corruption. Venture backed companies are more difficult, since you would need a paper trail (equity, incorporation documents, beneficial owners, etc.) It's not impossible, of course. It's not even terribly difficult, but it does require a different level of record. (No, I'm not saying that the goons running the United States give a shit or won't do it anyway.)
    - citadel_melon 3mo ago
      VC companies do not dig into the numbers as you suggest. FTX was able to get away with their fraud for a long time for that very reason. VC companies don’t care if some of their investments are fraudulent as they spread their eggs so thin that it doesn’t matter if any given basket blows up. VC firms stated this to the press outright when FTX blew up. Also most crypto companies are not good for laundering since the blockchains record that fraud forever and publicly. I could see some specific protocols where that may not be true — like monero or tornado cash — but these projects are not really startups. Most crypto startups pitch their products for enterprise customers and thus would be horrible for laundering money.
andy99 3mo ago
Other than maybe some in-the-moment cybersec wrappers, is this really true? Does anyone think a startup with a good product is going to be materially disadvantaged by not having access to an incrementally better security focused LLM release? It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release, but in real life it’s not conferring some massive advantage that any real startup would need to compete. Almost everyone would be best just to ignore it and keep building. (Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)
- redcheeks 3mo ago
  [flagged]
- xorgun 3mo ago
  Yes, i do. I have 10xd my productivity since last year and im not smarter. And yes my code is high quality
- afavour 3mo ago
  That kind of gets to the absurdity of it. Either it’s a wildly powerful next generation model with incredible capabilities and thus needs to be limited… or it’s another progressive enhancement like we’ve seen already and limiting access to it makes no sense.
  - ares623 3mo ago
    The enemy is both all-powerful and pathetic, at the same time, all the time.
    - tyre 3mo ago
      As someone old enough to remember the party breakdown in Congress when Obama came to office, yes, I can confirm that this is possible.
  - paytonjjones 3mo ago
    I don't think that follows. Say you had a perfectly smooth progressive chain from rocks to spears to guns to nuclear weapons. When it comes to government restrictions, you still have to choose to draw lines somewhere, right?

This seems like it will have pretty huge negative affects on startups needing to compete with 'trusted partners'

A_D_E_P_T 3mo ago

Startups don't have as much money to spend on lobbying and gifts, though.

ares623 3mo ago
Will startups be even a thing now that the VCs obviously just need to funnel all their money to 2 or so companies ad-infinitum for guaranteed returns.
- airstrike 3mo ago
  The single most important question to be discussed on this website right now.
  - redcheeks 3mo ago
    Whatever happened to those network states? It's starting to look like it's them, UAE or Singapore
    - ajmurmann 3mo ago
      Well, the network states were supposed to be a social thing rather than a place, no? Free Cities movement is more focused on actual, physical places.
slashdave 3mo ago
Well... there are crypto startups, and perhaps a generous definition of "money"
- tyre 3mo ago
  Crypto companies were built for anonymous transfers of wealth. It's why they are perfect for money laundering and corruption. Venture backed companies are more difficult, since you would need a paper trail (equity, incorporation documents, beneficial owners, etc.) It's not impossible, of course. It's not even terribly difficult, but it does require a different level of record. (No, I'm not saying that the goons running the United States give a shit or won't do it anyway.)
  - citadel_melon 3mo ago
    VC companies do not dig into the numbers as you suggest. FTX was able to get away with their fraud for a long time for that very reason. VC companies don’t care if some of their investments are fraudulent as they spread their eggs so thin that it doesn’t matter if any given basket blows up. VC firms stated this to the press outright when FTX blew up. Also most crypto companies are not good for laundering since the blockchains record that fraud forever and publicly. I could see some specific protocols where that may not be true — like monero or tornado cash — but these projects are not really startups. Most crypto startups pitch their products for enterprise customers and thus would be horrible for laundering money.

andy99 3mo ago

Other than maybe some in-the-moment cybersec wrappers, is this really true? Does anyone think a startup with a good product is going to be materially disadvantaged by not having access to an incrementally better security focused LLM release? It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release, but in real life it’s not conferring some massive advantage that any real startup would need to compete. Almost everyone would be best just to ignore it and keep building. (Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)

redcheeks 3mo ago
[flagged]
xorgun 3mo ago
Yes, i do. I have 10xd my productivity since last year and im not smarter. And yes my code is high quality
afavour 3mo ago
That kind of gets to the absurdity of it. Either it’s a wildly powerful next generation model with incredible capabilities and thus needs to be limited… or it’s another progressive enhancement like we’ve seen already and limiting access to it makes no sense.
- ares623 3mo ago
  The enemy is both all-powerful and pathetic, at the same time, all the time.
  - tyre 3mo ago
    As someone old enough to remember the party breakdown in Congress when Obama came to office, yes, I can confirm that this is possible.
- paytonjjones 3mo ago
  I don't think that follows. Say you had a perfectly smooth progressive chain from rocks to spears to guns to nuclear weapons. When it comes to government restrictions, you still have to choose to draw lines somewhere, right?