Hacker News
points by impossiblefork 4 days ago | 0 comments
I think a post-training common would have to be somewhat protected, since these things would be created with great effort and would potentially impact people's ability to earn money in their jobs.

I could also imagining them happening as state projects for the sake of competitiveness.

[–] dlwh 4 days ago
One of the things I'm/we're thinking through is how to do this in a way that’s participatory rather than extractive. It's not necessary that what scientists would choose to automate with agents is the same as what a company trying to automate scientists would choose.

If we can help people automate drudgery while giving them a real say in what gets built and control over how their work is used, I think there’s a possibility of a much better outcome than the current trajectory. I’m not sure we’re in that world, but I think we should try.

[–] ArcHound 4 days ago
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If any form of participation will give benefits after they've contributed, it will be abused into extraction.

I honestly think you shouldn't try.

[–] lukasschwab 4 days ago
I'm not sure I'll do it justice, but one of the general ideas behind open-model initiatives is that the economic impacts of specialized post-training are a fait accompli. OpenAI and Anthropic have spent $many-millions procuring closed posttraining data.

The relevant question here is whether you want open-weight models — projects like Open Athena — to remain or become competitive in the same range of specialties.

[–] dannyw 4 days ago
They're already kinda protected, open weight releases rarely come with datasets, especially post-training datasets. NVIDIA is probably the exception.

I also wonder when the NSA starts sharing their wiretaps/etc with labs for 'national security'. Probably already happening, to be honest.

[–] Retro_Dev 4 days ago
> I also wonder when the NSA starts sharing their wiretaps/etc with labs for 'national security'.

What would this benefit the NSA? If they share wiretap records with labs such as Anthropic, then suddenly anyone who can jailbreak a model gets access to this data. You don't need to train a model on data to understand or interpret it, as far as I know - providing others (esp. AI labs) with sensitive data is a breach of security, or I am not understanding.

[–] dannyw 4 days ago
I should’ve been more specific, I mean more industrial espionage and getting access to internal data that would be useful to frontier labs for training.

See the well-documented case of NSA conducting espionage against EU’s Airbus to help Boeing.

[–] dlwh 4 days ago
NVIDIA has done great work with the open datasets and they're much appreciated, but it's worth mentioning that a large fraction of their post-training data is not released. cf. https://huggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Super-VL-1... But at leased they disclosed what wasn't released.
[–] edot 4 days ago
Wrong direction. NSA says “give us the weights to Fable and loan us some engineers who can get a TS-SCI clearance so we can train our own model in house, if you don’t well just take them, in fact maybe we already did, it’s for national security”.
[–] lnkdinsuxs 4 days ago
No, NSA programs are not SCI, haven't been for a few years. They are SAP.

NSA doesn't have to post train Fable. Maven works well enough and that same infra. can be used for Fable. I imagine that's what's going to happen in 2 years once the current admin. moves out.