4 ms·

> If the U.S. continues to stymie open source, China will come to dominate this part of the supply chain and many businesses will end up using models that refle

> If the U.S. continues to stymie open source, China will come to dominate this part of the supply chain and many businesses will end up using models that reflect China’s values much more than America’s. I'm not sure the U.S. as a whole is stymying open source -- or at least there don't seem to be governmental pressures to keep things closed source. Take the llama models, for instance.

dtquad 2y ago
Yeah, I am going to blame American/Western companies more than the American/Western governments. For marketing reasons alone Meta (US) and Mistral (French) should have launched and promoted standalone apps just like DeepSeek did for R1/V3. Many people think DeepSeek's models are the first that can be self-hosted because they simply haven't heard about LLaMA's or Mistral's models.
teleforce 2y ago
>I'm not sure the U.S. as a whole is stymying open source Can these events be considered US is stymying open source [1], [2]? [1] Navigating Global Regulations and Open Source: US OFAC Sanctions: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/navigating-global-regulations-and-open-source-us-ofac-sanctions https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/navigating-global-regul... [2] Linux Foundation Makes Statement About Banning Russian Programmers (3 Mths Late): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899843
- markisus 2y ago
  Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It’s a bit hard for me to understand the legal intricacies but the point of the article [1] looks like this sentence. > For developers, this means you need to be cautious about who you interact with and where your contributions come from. I guess this may prevent USA affiliated developers from collaborating with certain designated foreign developers. It’s possible that the DeepSeek team or other top foreign developers may become sanctioned by OFAC. Then forking their models may be considered transacting. This would certainly be disastrous for US researchers, if the pace of progress out of foreign teams continues. But then again I’m not sure why the powers that be would effect such an own-goal.
LunaSea 2y ago
Wasn't Llama leaked before Meta conceded and made it open source?
- dtquad 2y ago
  Meta was sending LLaMA 1 to anyone with an .edu email. It was always meant to be publicly released.

dtquad 2y ago

Yeah, I am going to blame American/Western companies more than the American/Western governments. For marketing reasons alone Meta (US) and Mistral (French) should have launched and promoted standalone apps just like DeepSeek did for R1/V3. Many people think DeepSeek's models are the first that can be self-hosted because they simply haven't heard about LLaMA's or Mistral's models.

teleforce 2y ago

>I'm not sure the U.S. as a whole is stymying open source Can these events be considered US is stymying open source [1], [2]? [1] Navigating Global Regulations and Open Source: US OFAC Sanctions: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/navigating-global-regulations-and-open-source-us-ofac-sanctions https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/navigating-global-regul... [2] Linux Foundation Makes Statement About Banning Russian Programmers (3 Mths Late): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42899843

markisus 2y ago
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It’s a bit hard for me to understand the legal intricacies but the point of the article [1] looks like this sentence. > For developers, this means you need to be cautious about who you interact with and where your contributions come from. I guess this may prevent USA affiliated developers from collaborating with certain designated foreign developers. It’s possible that the DeepSeek team or other top foreign developers may become sanctioned by OFAC. Then forking their models may be considered transacting. This would certainly be disastrous for US researchers, if the pace of progress out of foreign teams continues. But then again I’m not sure why the powers that be would effect such an own-goal.

LunaSea 2y ago

Wasn't Llama leaked before Meta conceded and made it open source?

dtquad 2y ago
Meta was sending LLaMA 1 to anyone with an .edu email. It was always meant to be publicly released.