Zac Hill

50.5K posts

Zac Hill banner
Zac Hill

Zac Hill

@zdch

Co-founder/President, Office of American Possibilities. Newest stuff: Resilient America; In Pursuit. Professional Wizard in a previous life.

Washington, DC Katılım Ocak 2009
895 Takip Edilen7.7K Takipçiler
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
The Largo AMC has, ah, a few downsides relative to the Georgetown one. I always forget that Get A Draft Beer In Your Movie Theatre isn’t, like, just the way it is everywhere.
English
1
0
2
483
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
@growing_daniel I don’t think Dean is being motivated by conflict of interest here and I think both his explanations and his posting history make clear that’s not what’s going on. It also seems a bit orthogonal to the ‘dumping’ point.
English
0
0
0
40
Daniel
Daniel@growing_daniel·
Okay, I’ll take a hack at Deans argument without his conflict of interest. What China is doing in AI is called dumping. They do it in literally every industry they enter. The goal is to kill all local competition by subsidizing their own industry so they can produce at a loss, then once all competitors are dead, they can charge profitable prices and control the market. In steel and automobiles this is just bad. In AI it’s potentially fatal to our country. Unfortunately, dumping is the a very common argument for rent seeking domestic firms who want protection, and Dean’s position here seems to be a Jones Act of sorts for AI. This has famously not saved our shipbuilding industry and I suspect it won’t save our AI labs. Stopping open weights it’s virtually impossible. So our only other option is governments taking stakes in labs and subsidizing our own industry. If you scream and yell about either Jones Acting AI or subsidizing GPUs then you should also explain how we will escape the dumping trap china is trying to push on us to destroy our labs and leave themselves with the only functioning AI industry in the world.
Dean W. Ball@deanwball

Some observations on Kimi: 1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also seemed very token hungry. It's not obvious to me that this model is actually that cheap to run. 2. I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks. To be clear, I *myself* might be fine with models presenting this level of marginal risk being open weight, but I am surprised that China is fine with it. I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). The other 25% or so is their lack of compute for customer inference (making China's open-weight strategy an unintended byproduct of US export controls) and the normal Chinese strategy of aggressive exports. For the companies, as opposed to the government, the decision to open source is partially ideological and partially because they are behind, and they know that very few people would pay for sub-frontier models from China. 3. Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist, and I'm continually surprised to see the so-called "accelerationists" so excited about open-weight models. I suspect the reason they are is that they know open-weight models are effectively ungovernable, and they simply like the overall cloak of ungovernability open-weight models create over the whole of AI. It's not a bad strategy; it reminds me of James Scott's recounting of the hill people in "the art of not being governed." Still, in the end, open-weight models deter further AI capex. 4. One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a "public good" which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of "digital public infrastructure." This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I've never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn't ultimately concede this is where things end. You'd be surprised how many 'accelerationists' lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don't know what they're doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business. 5. I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don't need to "ban open source" (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. "A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don't want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There's a happy middle ground here. I'd assume they will do some version of this. 6. It's probably true that open-weight models of this capability make the world a bit more dangerous, but not so much more that you'll really notice. At some point the models will be capable enough that you will notice. "A nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a Chinese lab," you say? Color me shocked.

English
112
48
577
45.4K
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
@channingms1 Not sure; probably some amount of money, which taxes are allocated for.
English
0
0
0
20
Ms.Channing
Ms.Channing@channingms1·
@zdch How much did that cost the NYC taxpayers?
English
1
0
0
24
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
The absolute most amazing thing about Mamdani is that instead of saying “socialism is about a revolution that will upend all things,” he’s obsessed with how the state can improve people’s lives in tangible ways they can see and feel.
Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani@NYCMayor

This summer, we kept the lights on all night, every night, at five soccer fields across New York City.

This was the scene at Calvert Vaux Park in Gravesend, Brooklyn Tuesday night.

English
39
635
9.9K
174.3K
N. LaFleur
N. LaFleur@redintooth·
@zdch This is literally what every mayor of New York does. It’s their primary job and why people vote for them.
English
1
0
0
268
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
@CmonThenBKNY 100%. "What I care about is you and the quality of your life", not "what I care about is self-gratifying by virtue of felt participation in my own grandiose political project".
English
0
1
2
28
Unnatural Abomination
Unnatural Abomination@CmonThenBKNY·
Yeah, turns out "we're gonna burn it all down and if you don't like it you're a fascist" is a crappy sales pitch. Good for Mamdani. And good for everyone who is finally figuring out not to let the pushiest people available be the public face.
Zac Hill@zdch

The absolute most amazing thing about Mamdani is that instead of saying “socialism is about a revolution that will upend all things,” he’s obsessed with how the state can improve people’s lives in tangible ways they can see and feel.

English
2
1
4
111
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
Everyone needs to be reading more Marlene Laruelle and subscribing to her very good postliberalism blog. No one is more precisely diagnosing its limitations nor more poignantly highlighting avenues for viable solutions. On substance, the extent to which I agree or disagree with this particular digest is a function of what we thing liberalism need to do. I personally believe politics is a profoundly limited and incomplete vector of purpose specifically and meaning-providing cultural worldview more broadly, one that never will be adequate to those tasks. So I believe the job is fundamentally a Weberian one, one of deploying institutional mechanics towards positive outcomes. BUT, the craving for purpose is a political issue. And liberals who want to thrive in that environment must diagnose that issue and come forward with solutions. It’s just that the solutions need not be liberalism itself.
English
2
0
0
172
Gabriel
Gabriel@gbrl_dick·
until now, the frontier labs have operated under the assumption that they have a monopoly on frontier capabilities. the latest moonshot model suggests that might not always be the case. the threat to the infrastructure buildout seems overrated. and Anthropic and OpenAI still retain an edge. but Kimi K3 does throw into question an approach to safety that relies on the labs sharing access with a tightly held group for months before release. @viemccoy put it very neatly—we are entering the era of AI ecology. and we might expect things to speed up. i wrote about it, at length, for @MTSlive full piece: open.substack.com/pub/mtslive/p/…
Gabriel tweet media
English
8
4
50
9.5K
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
@souljagoyteller I always love just asking people about mechanism and seeing what they say.
English
0
0
0
16
Sami Gold 🇪🇸
Sami Gold 🇪🇸@souljagoyteller·
I like how these guys believe that the biggest fraud in electoral history occurred to attack Trump, and yet Trump, the sitting President of the United States, is powerless to stop it
Rob Schneider 🇺🇸@RobSchneider

English
34
281
8.9K
109.2K
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
@neeratanden Right, and people love to just ignore the mountains of data we have about this. We don’t have to speculate! We know the answer! And everybody be all like “oh <parsing distinctions about what liberal means> as though the stated preference doesn’t imply the desire for moderation.”
English
0
0
0
67
Richard Hanania
Richard Hanania@RichardHanania·
Trial lawyers lobby against self-driving cars because they need people to get injured and die. I’m surprised people can be this consciously evil. Usually you need a way to justify what you’re doing.
Richard Hanania tweet media
English
28
90
875
31.9K
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
@marcidale “AI is killing jobs except for all the jobs it is creating.”
English
0
1
2
59
Zac Hill
Zac Hill@zdch·
@abundancechud Not sure, though I do think that’s why he retained Jessica Tisch.
English
0
0
1
155