5 ms·

They are regulationmaxxing instead of benchmaxxing, that's my problem with them.

by dwedge 9d ago

intended 9d ago
It bears repeating - all markets get regulated. Markets, left to their own devices, do not end up automatically being competitive in favor of consumers. But above all, if AI wasn’t hyped as a threat to humanity, to jobs, to security, regulation could have been cautious. To add insult to injury, given how voters are tired of technology, expecting a different move from governments is a losing bet.
- 21asdffdsa12 9d ago
  And in the long run, regulated market companies win out- while the de-regulated ones decay and enshittify. Boeing vs Airbus comes to mind.
  - nickpp 9d ago
    Great example. An highly regulated field (aerospace) put so many barriers of entry for startups and competition that the incumbents simple have to reason to innovate or even compete anymore. I heard there used to be dozens of plane-building companies when the field was unregulated, with new, more efficient models and lower prices appearing regularly. I wonder what happened.
    - notahacker 9d ago
      > I heard there used to be dozens of plane-building companies when the field was unregulated, with new, more efficient models and lower prices appearing regularly. I wonder what happened. I heard that this is nonsense. There never were more than a handful of large aircraft builders (still are plenty of small ones), safety records certainly weren't better in the era before consolidation, and new entrants funded by the might of their governments have failed not because of regulation but because what airlines actually want is lots of identical aircraft from a reliable supplier and the new entrants haven't really been competitive in terms of performance either. The certification is complex, but so's building an aircraft, and it's really only the people further down the supply chain that need the protective umbrella...
    - intended 8d ago
      But Boeing and Airbus kept desiging and building new and improved planes. There are multiple aircraft manufacturers for smaller aircraft, and there are several showing up for electric aircraft today. For jets, the capex required to build them is massive, and its never going to have an upstart just up and build a jet. The regulations in place are the reason why its safe to fly, and airlines have the safety records they do. This is the degree of safety end consumers want to be reassured that its safe to fly. The checks and balances in places create the market that you are hoping to give over to cheaper upstarts. The market doesn't exist without that safety regulation. See how people feel uneasy when flying Boeing after the decay of their engineering and quality culture became public knowledge.
- prolly97 9d ago
  There's a big difference between governments regulating to benefit their own control and power, and regulating in favor of consumers. Most regulation in the EU have jack-all to do with consumers. There's a couple of niceties - having all prices displayed in comparable unites (EUR/kg, EUR/liter etc). But apart from that the regulation have broadly served as moats around the largest businesses.
  - boonzeet 9d ago
    There are many EU directives which benefit consumers directly in tech, including, but not limited to: Consumer rights - 14 day cooling off period for online purchases Sale of goods - 2 year seller liability for defective goods Right to repair - likely doesn’t need explanation, require manufacturers to offer repairs and replacement parts Unfair commercial practices - prevent misleading or deceptive advertising Unfair contract terms directive - prevents disproportionately one-sided provisions in T&Cs (think Disney giving themselves legal immunity for a free Disney+ trial) The EU’s problem seems to be in communicating its benefits to its citizens.
    - ricardobayes 9d ago
      I wouldn't even call it a communication problem - I believe it's more a media problem, than anything. Good news are minimized and bad news are amplified to the maximum - nowadays even broadsheet newspapers operate with tabloid headlines, and that is really bad. We somehow need to "want" a slower news cycle and simultaneously push back against the algorithmic outrage. The world is more predictable and safer than ever but the perception of the average person is not this, it's manufactured outrage at every possible opportunity and topic. Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago, almost none feel that way and that is almost 100% due to the news algorithms being tuned to keep you in a constant dread cycle.
      - prolly97 9d ago
        >Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago I'm sure it's true, but do we have some statistics on that, and a comparison to places that doesn't have the same regulatory burden?
- blfr 9d ago
  Right now the weakly regulated American market is delivering staggering competition where massive corporations are fighting tooth and nail over my 100 bucks. I kept hearing the same about previous age tech and there also Americans rule the Internet: Google Search, Workspace or m365, AWS, Cloudflare... Even Linus moved to the US.
  - vichle 9d ago
    They've been pretty efficient in squashing any potential competition because of that weak regulation, yes. Don't confuse it with competing on the merits of their products.
    - blfr 9d ago
      Why hasn't strong competition arise from well-regulated EU? Where are the superior European products? I'd gladly use them.
      - t43562 8d ago
        These are effective monopolies competing to become super monopolies - the period leading up to dominance by one or two is beneficial to consumers with freebies and cheap offers that also completely lock out any smaller players. If you don't let such things develop in the first place then there's not enough money to round out and scale the product. So if we want world beating products we may need monopolies but we can nationalise them in the same way we nationalised big infrastructure in the past. Then at least we're not the tail wagging the dog anymore.
      - robotresearcher 8d ago
        You do. ASML, ARM, Linux (originally), Spotify, Logitech. Novartis, Astra Zenica.
- nickpp 9d ago
  And it bears repeating: regulation (even well meaning regulation) is not free and it always favors incumbents and hinders startups.
  - intended 9d ago
    Yes. This is always going to be the case, because regulation is typically a form of friction. It is the shape of regulation that matters, and ideology on either side of the divide is religion. Good regulation and regulators would punish anti competitive behavior, but this will also act as a drag on firms, while preventing firms from reaching certain sizes and potential economies of scale. The point is that regulation deserves to be understood and crafted well. Those economies of scale are meaningless to consumers if it means a single firm squeezes everyone in the supply chain and captures the benefit for itself. This is also a specific weakness in American conversations. The divide between free markets, competition, and regulation are ideological. If you want good markets you need good regulation and incentive structuring.
    - nickpp 8d ago
      > If you want good markets you need good regulation and incentive structuring. Actually, in the real world, the worst markets are also the strongest regulated: housing, education and health care. Meanwhile the fields that got to be regulated last brought us the most wealth, advances and innovation: high tech & software.
      - intended 8d ago
        > Actually, in the real world, the worst markets are also the strongest regulated: housing, education and health care. > Meanwhile the fields that got to be regulated last brought us the most wealth, advances and innovation: high tech & software. Financial markets are highly regulated. They are one of the most structured markets out there. The outcomes in all those markets, whether they are good or bad, is a direct result of how the markets are structured. The 2008 financial crisis, for example, was a direct result of regulators being defanged and underfunded for multiple years. If you look at technology: innovation amazing in the era of unlimited horizons, the era of "move fast and break things." However, the cost of externalities from inventions like social media, were not captured in that market structure. This means that firms can absolutely pollute or addict people in the information economy, capturing the profit but socializing the costs. The ability of dominant players to consume/acquihire upstarts and keep their market position, is a drag on innovation and consumer outcomes today. The situation that was faced in the early days of a new technology is different than what is faced in its maturity, when the advantages of the nimble upstart give way to the massive overlord. At each stage, you have to craft the incentives and rules to ensure you achieve the outcomes you (as a nation) actually priortize.
- ywvcbk 9d ago
  > Markets, left to their own devices, do not end up automatically being competitive in favor of consumers. True. Does not mean all regulation is increases competition and marker efficiency by default. If anything EU has long abandoned the core tenets of Ordoliberalism and "Social Market Economy"
mazurnification 9d ago
This is strategy of laggers. Everybody do that when found themselves in the situation. Including US and China.
pavlov 9d ago
After living in the US for several years, I was happy to return to the EU where regulations exist to protect against the worst corporate behavior. My American bank sold my credit card transactions to advertisers. My American mobile operator had insane fees for roaming and other features that are basic in Europe. Sending a bank transfer in America was unreliable and slow and expensive because there was nothing like SEPA instant 24/7 free transfer (I guess FedWire does that nowadays, I don’t know if consumers actually have guaranteed access at all banks like they do in EU). When American AI companies become established Fortune 100 members, they’ll start abusing their customers just like all the others in that club, those banks and phone operators and Microsoft and the rest. Google once pretended to be different, now they have the corporate cancer. No reason to believe the same won’t happen to OpenAI and Anthropic.
- dwedge 9d ago
  Sure but it's not the government calling for regulation, it's Mistral. At times they seem like a government mouthpiece to check the waters, which I could accept if their models were at least any good
  - Aeolos 9d ago
    Did you miss the Anthropic and OpenAI blog posts screeching for regulation?
    - eloisant 9d ago
      Yes, now that they are in place they want to put barriers for new entrants.
  - stanac 9d ago
    Didn't both Amodei and Altman called for regulation of open-weight models? Not that long ago on xitter....
    - notahacker 9d ago
      They've both been insisting that humanity's survival is contingent on regulation since the start and employ armies of lobbyists to try to shape the policies they want that hold significant sway in their own country. But of course Americans doing this is smart and entrepreneurial...
dns_snek 9d ago
Which provisions of which regulation are you complaining about, related to AI?
- mhitza 8d ago
  Read this https://europe.mistral.ai/ https://europe.mistral.ai/ if you can bare to go through the slop, has it's share of regulatory capture strategy. Here's the HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47743700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47743700
BoredomIsFun 9d ago
> They are regulationmaxxing instead of benchmaxxing, that's my problem with them. To those who is in know (r/localllama, r/sillytavernai), is well aware that Mistral models - at least the small, <=24b ones - are the least censored, even less than Chinese.
- hobofan 8d ago
  Regulation != censorship. (Apart from that, Mistral has Shieldstral[0] for adding policy enforcement). With it's general approach of Open Weights, and being able to be deployed on-premise (/private/public cloud), they are a viable solution for your typical European enterprise, that has to comply with traditional (non-AI) regulation. With the NIS2 directive the amount of those companies is also significantly expanding. We[1] are in the same market as Mistral, and among our customers, the go-to-solution of MS Copilot is typically performing badly, and the typical SaaS solutions are not even given a consideration, which is why they are reaching for on-premise-first solutions. [0]: https://mistral.ai/news/shieldstral/ https://mistral.ai/news/shieldstral/ [1]: https://github.com/EratoLab/erato https://github.com/EratoLab/erato
davedx 8d ago
Don't make me laugh. Who has actually sat in Congress and told congress leaders to push regulatory capture? Not Mistral
stymaar 8d ago
You're confusing with Anthropic . They are definitely feeding off the fear of US control from US companies and institutions, but you can't blame them for reaping the benefits of Trump's lunacy. Amodei and Altman on the other hand are relentlessly pushing for regulation to bar open weight competition from eating their lunch.

They are regulationmaxxing instead of benchmaxxing, that's my problem with them.

by dwedge 9d ago

They are regulationmaxxing instead of benchmaxxing, that's my problem with them.

It bears repeating - all markets get regulated. Markets, left to their own devices, do not end up automatically being competitive in favor of consumers. But above all, if AI wasn’t hyped as a threat to humanity, to jobs, to security, regulation could have been cautious. To add insult to injury, given how voters are tired of technology, expecting a different move from governments is a losing bet.

21asdffdsa12 9d ago
And in the long run, regulated market companies win out- while the de-regulated ones decay and enshittify. Boeing vs Airbus comes to mind.
- nickpp 9d ago
  Great example. An highly regulated field (aerospace) put so many barriers of entry for startups and competition that the incumbents simple have to reason to innovate or even compete anymore. I heard there used to be dozens of plane-building companies when the field was unregulated, with new, more efficient models and lower prices appearing regularly. I wonder what happened.
  - notahacker 9d ago
    > I heard there used to be dozens of plane-building companies when the field was unregulated, with new, more efficient models and lower prices appearing regularly. I wonder what happened. I heard that this is nonsense. There never were more than a handful of large aircraft builders (still are plenty of small ones), safety records certainly weren't better in the era before consolidation, and new entrants funded by the might of their governments have failed not because of regulation but because what airlines actually want is lots of identical aircraft from a reliable supplier and the new entrants haven't really been competitive in terms of performance either. The certification is complex, but so's building an aircraft, and it's really only the people further down the supply chain that need the protective umbrella...
  - intended 8d ago
    But Boeing and Airbus kept desiging and building new and improved planes. There are multiple aircraft manufacturers for smaller aircraft, and there are several showing up for electric aircraft today. For jets, the capex required to build them is massive, and its never going to have an upstart just up and build a jet. The regulations in place are the reason why its safe to fly, and airlines have the safety records they do. This is the degree of safety end consumers want to be reassured that its safe to fly. The checks and balances in places create the market that you are hoping to give over to cheaper upstarts. The market doesn't exist without that safety regulation. See how people feel uneasy when flying Boeing after the decay of their engineering and quality culture became public knowledge.
prolly97 9d ago
There's a big difference between governments regulating to benefit their own control and power, and regulating in favor of consumers. Most regulation in the EU have jack-all to do with consumers. There's a couple of niceties - having all prices displayed in comparable unites (EUR/kg, EUR/liter etc). But apart from that the regulation have broadly served as moats around the largest businesses.
- boonzeet 9d ago
  There are many EU directives which benefit consumers directly in tech, including, but not limited to: Consumer rights - 14 day cooling off period for online purchases Sale of goods - 2 year seller liability for defective goods Right to repair - likely doesn’t need explanation, require manufacturers to offer repairs and replacement parts Unfair commercial practices - prevent misleading or deceptive advertising Unfair contract terms directive - prevents disproportionately one-sided provisions in T&Cs (think Disney giving themselves legal immunity for a free Disney+ trial) The EU’s problem seems to be in communicating its benefits to its citizens.
  - ricardobayes 9d ago
    I wouldn't even call it a communication problem - I believe it's more a media problem, than anything. Good news are minimized and bad news are amplified to the maximum - nowadays even broadsheet newspapers operate with tabloid headlines, and that is really bad. We somehow need to "want" a slower news cycle and simultaneously push back against the algorithmic outrage. The world is more predictable and safer than ever but the perception of the average person is not this, it's manufactured outrage at every possible opportunity and topic. Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago, almost none feel that way and that is almost 100% due to the news algorithms being tuned to keep you in a constant dread cycle.
    - prolly97 9d ago
      >Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago I'm sure it's true, but do we have some statistics on that, and a comparison to places that doesn't have the same regulatory burden?
blfr 9d ago
Right now the weakly regulated American market is delivering staggering competition where massive corporations are fighting tooth and nail over my 100 bucks. I kept hearing the same about previous age tech and there also Americans rule the Internet: Google Search, Workspace or m365, AWS, Cloudflare... Even Linus moved to the US.
- vichle 9d ago
  They've been pretty efficient in squashing any potential competition because of that weak regulation, yes. Don't confuse it with competing on the merits of their products.
  - blfr 9d ago
    Why hasn't strong competition arise from well-regulated EU? Where are the superior European products? I'd gladly use them.
    - t43562 8d ago
      These are effective monopolies competing to become super monopolies - the period leading up to dominance by one or two is beneficial to consumers with freebies and cheap offers that also completely lock out any smaller players. If you don't let such things develop in the first place then there's not enough money to round out and scale the product. So if we want world beating products we may need monopolies but we can nationalise them in the same way we nationalised big infrastructure in the past. Then at least we're not the tail wagging the dog anymore.
    - robotresearcher 8d ago
      You do. ASML, ARM, Linux (originally), Spotify, Logitech. Novartis, Astra Zenica.
nickpp 9d ago
And it bears repeating: regulation (even well meaning regulation) is not free and it always favors incumbents and hinders startups.
- intended 9d ago
  Yes. This is always going to be the case, because regulation is typically a form of friction. It is the shape of regulation that matters, and ideology on either side of the divide is religion. Good regulation and regulators would punish anti competitive behavior, but this will also act as a drag on firms, while preventing firms from reaching certain sizes and potential economies of scale. The point is that regulation deserves to be understood and crafted well. Those economies of scale are meaningless to consumers if it means a single firm squeezes everyone in the supply chain and captures the benefit for itself. This is also a specific weakness in American conversations. The divide between free markets, competition, and regulation are ideological. If you want good markets you need good regulation and incentive structuring.
  - nickpp 8d ago
    > If you want good markets you need good regulation and incentive structuring. Actually, in the real world, the worst markets are also the strongest regulated: housing, education and health care. Meanwhile the fields that got to be regulated last brought us the most wealth, advances and innovation: high tech & software.
    - intended 8d ago
      > Actually, in the real world, the worst markets are also the strongest regulated: housing, education and health care. > Meanwhile the fields that got to be regulated last brought us the most wealth, advances and innovation: high tech & software. Financial markets are highly regulated. They are one of the most structured markets out there. The outcomes in all those markets, whether they are good or bad, is a direct result of how the markets are structured. The 2008 financial crisis, for example, was a direct result of regulators being defanged and underfunded for multiple years. If you look at technology: innovation amazing in the era of unlimited horizons, the era of "move fast and break things." However, the cost of externalities from inventions like social media, were not captured in that market structure. This means that firms can absolutely pollute or addict people in the information economy, capturing the profit but socializing the costs. The ability of dominant players to consume/acquihire upstarts and keep their market position, is a drag on innovation and consumer outcomes today. The situation that was faced in the early days of a new technology is different than what is faced in its maturity, when the advantages of the nimble upstart give way to the massive overlord. At each stage, you have to craft the incentives and rules to ensure you achieve the outcomes you (as a nation) actually priortize.
ywvcbk 9d ago
> Markets, left to their own devices, do not end up automatically being competitive in favor of consumers. True. Does not mean all regulation is increases competition and marker efficiency by default. If anything EU has long abandoned the core tenets of Ordoliberalism and "Social Market Economy"

mazurnification 9d ago

This is strategy of laggers. Everybody do that when found themselves in the situation. Including US and China.

pavlov 9d ago

After living in the US for several years, I was happy to return to the EU where regulations exist to protect against the worst corporate behavior. My American bank sold my credit card transactions to advertisers. My American mobile operator had insane fees for roaming and other features that are basic in Europe. Sending a bank transfer in America was unreliable and slow and expensive because there was nothing like SEPA instant 24/7 free transfer (I guess FedWire does that nowadays, I don’t know if consumers actually have guaranteed access at all banks like they do in EU). When American AI companies become established Fortune 100 members, they’ll start abusing their customers just like all the others in that club, those banks and phone operators and Microsoft and the rest. Google once pretended to be different, now they have the corporate cancer. No reason to believe the same won’t happen to OpenAI and Anthropic.

dwedge 9d ago
Sure but it's not the government calling for regulation, it's Mistral. At times they seem like a government mouthpiece to check the waters, which I could accept if their models were at least any good
- Aeolos 9d ago
  Did you miss the Anthropic and OpenAI blog posts screeching for regulation?
  - eloisant 9d ago
    Yes, now that they are in place they want to put barriers for new entrants.
- stanac 9d ago
  Didn't both Amodei and Altman called for regulation of open-weight models? Not that long ago on xitter....
  - notahacker 9d ago
    They've both been insisting that humanity's survival is contingent on regulation since the start and employ armies of lobbyists to try to shape the policies they want that hold significant sway in their own country. But of course Americans doing this is smart and entrepreneurial...

dns_snek 9d ago

Which provisions of which regulation are you complaining about, related to AI?

mhitza 8d ago
Read this https://europe.mistral.ai/ https://europe.mistral.ai/ if you can bare to go through the slop, has it's share of regulatory capture strategy. Here's the HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47743700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47743700

BoredomIsFun 9d ago

> They are regulationmaxxing instead of benchmaxxing, that's my problem with them. To those who is in know (r/localllama, r/sillytavernai), is well aware that Mistral models - at least the small, <=24b ones - are the least censored, even less than Chinese.

hobofan 8d ago
Regulation != censorship. (Apart from that, Mistral has Shieldstral[0] for adding policy enforcement). With it's general approach of Open Weights, and being able to be deployed on-premise (/private/public cloud), they are a viable solution for your typical European enterprise, that has to comply with traditional (non-AI) regulation. With the NIS2 directive the amount of those companies is also significantly expanding. We[1] are in the same market as Mistral, and among our customers, the go-to-solution of MS Copilot is typically performing badly, and the typical SaaS solutions are not even given a consideration, which is why they are reaching for on-premise-first solutions. [0]: https://mistral.ai/news/shieldstral/ https://mistral.ai/news/shieldstral/ [1]: https://github.com/EratoLab/erato https://github.com/EratoLab/erato

davedx 8d ago

Don't make me laugh. Who has actually sat in Congress and told congress leaders to push regulatory capture? Not Mistral

stymaar 8d ago

You're confusing with Anthropic . They are definitely feeding off the fear of US control from US companies and institutions, but you can't blame them for reaping the benefits of Trump's lunacy. Amodei and Altman on the other hand are relentlessly pushing for regulation to bar open weight competition from eating their lunch.