How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

mmooss

The OP speculates on why the Trump administration would change direction. Like so many they omit the reason staring everyone in the face: It's a way to acquire more power and wealth for Trump and allies, and more leverage. AI is the highest growth industry in the world, and the most powerful technological change. Any democratic government would seek to control and harness such a thing to the public interest, and the Trump administration's general vision of the democratic public interest is more power for the office of the POTUS. Imagine the power, wealth, and leverage of controlling AI models and virtually any aspect of them by being able to control their release and content. Imagine the control over content in the US and worldwide, controlling the output of almost every LLM.

FridayoLeary

I'm struck by the wild recklessness and unrestrained power of these administration employees. Musk is the most prominent example. I've never even heard of Sacks until now. If it's any consolation these guys crashing and burning seems to be the rule. Trump likes results and hates headaches. One exception is Jared Isaacman the billionaire head of NASA who experienced a bit of a roller coaster. Unlike the previous 2 i think he will actually do a good job. One thing that stands out about Trump is how accessible he is. Apparently he takes cold calls and will listen to ideas from anyone (this includes laura loomer, but still).

paulsutter

Mythos. It's all about Mythos. Once they realized that DoW had locked themselves out of Mythos because of their beef with Anthropic, Trump invited Anthropic to the White House, and in that meeting they convinced Trump that Mythos is a big deal, and that China is distilling their models. Excited to have a powerful tool, now they are saying it should be used by Government agencies first, and therefore, regulation. Key takeaway: when defense types hear something is DANGEROUS, they want more of it. That's the outcome of discussing x-risk with the federal government. "Existential risk? That sounds GREAT! How can we get more of that, make it more dangerous?"

Quarrelsome

> Anthropic’s enemies in the Pentagon, who had, months prior, convinced Trump that Anthropic was “woke” and should be banned for government use. That people in government speak like this is utterly absurd. The quote from Donald Trump's follow up tweet on t'social is considerably worse. This was all due to Antropic not wanting to take on a military contract, right? Or is it suggested its more to do with Mythos, but why would it be, if they never released it.

guizadillas

>David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House I was expecting someone to actually crash and burn but OK

JumpCrisscross

I live in Wyoming. My Senators saw this coming a year ago. Sacks may be stupid enough to believe his role was straightforward. But I don’t believe for second this outcome wasn’t, if not planned, looked forward to as an upside.

SwellJoe

Media always covers this administration as though it is normal, and making decisions based on rational policy analysis. Which never makes any sense, because that's not how this White House makes decisions. Trump wants more bribes, and the AI industry has all the money right now. So, he reckons he's owed a cut. The thing about a gangster with a protection racket is they're never going to stop. You pay them once, that just proves to them that you'll pay. All the tech titans lined up to kiss the ring, and now they're Trump's bitch forever.

johndhi

I guess I'm the lone person who likes Sacks here. I do think it's probably true that his influence flagged after Mythos. But he'd already been moved to the science board when that dropped. It's very over stated and looking to act like he was fired, which he wasn't. An article about a person 'falling out of favor' is silly but I guess that's the vibe of the administration so fair enough.

susrev

https://archive.is/Hpc5D

arjie

It is fascinating that technologists thought they'd use demagogues as a vehicle for change that they would like to see, but demagogues used technologists as a vehicle for their desired change. In the end, the more government-savvy operators triumphed and the rest sort of flamed out. I'm actually quite surprised Elon Musk got whacked. With his companies's success ultimately relying on varying degrees of how well he used US Government policy I expected him to be quite skilled at navigating it behind the scenes. After all, Tesla made it through tough times using green credits, and SpaceX can fly because he got Starlink protected under the DoD umbrella. So there's some degree of savvy there. I suppose you have to know when you're Lee Iacocca and when you're Henry Ford II. No matter what you do, one's in the family, and the other isn't, so if you're not in the family you'd better know that. I was quite eager to see if the chaos of this admin would cause accidental positive change. Submitted a petition via deregulation.gov to reduce the fund requirements for nuclear power plants. Who knows, might have worked. Didn't, but might've! Ah well, 3 more years and then we're clear.

gmueckl

OK, so they might want to review AI models - for what exactly? Is it to make sure that they have been properly lobotomized to become incapable of software security work? Is it to make sure that they only give true and factually accurate information (especially at a time where clearly only the government disseminates facts and truths to the public)? A properly compensated and sufficiently eloquent spin doctor can reframe almost anything as "security". Given the erratic course of the current US administration, I have absolutely no idea what to actually expect here.