3 ms·

If there is a walled garden, and you aren't in it, you'll probably push for the walls to come down. No moral basis needed.

vachina 1y ago
silent majority of HN
h4ny 1y ago
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "moral basis" in your comment?
- BobbyJo 1y ago
  I mean China's push for open weights/source/architecture probably has more to do with them wanting legal access to markets than it does with those things being morally superior.
  - wiz21c 1y ago
    If by being selfish they end up doing morally superior thing, then, I much prefer to go with the Chinese. Even more so now that Trump is in command.
  - amunozo 1y ago
    Of course, but that translates in a benefit for most people, even for Americans. In my case (European), I cannot but support the Chinese companies in this respect, as we would be especially in trouble if the common models are the norm.
- adastra22 1y ago
  It is in their selfish interest to push for open weights. That's not to say they are being selfish, or to judge in any way the morality of their actions. But because of that incentive, you can't logically infer moral agency in their decision to release open-weights, IP-free CPUs, etc.
  - sporkxrocket 1y ago
    Leaving China aside, it's arguably immoral that our leading AI models are closed and concentrated in the hands of billionaires with questionable ethical histories (at best).
  - jncfhnb 1y ago
    By selfish interests you mean the public good?
pg3uk 1y ago
Depends on whether you want to be in it. A ladder might be enough to peek over the top and rip it off. Do it better. Which seems to be what is happening.
- BobbyJo 1y ago
  That only works for China's domestic market. As long as the IP they are "taking inspiration from" is protected in the target markets, they effectively lock themselves out by doing that. In the case of technology like RISC, pretty much all the value add is unprotected, so they can sell those products in the US/EU without issue.

vachina 1y ago

silent majority of HN

h4ny 1y ago

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "moral basis" in your comment?

BobbyJo 1y ago
I mean China's push for open weights/source/architecture probably has more to do with them wanting legal access to markets than it does with those things being morally superior.
- wiz21c 1y ago
  If by being selfish they end up doing morally superior thing, then, I much prefer to go with the Chinese. Even more so now that Trump is in command.
- amunozo 1y ago
  Of course, but that translates in a benefit for most people, even for Americans. In my case (European), I cannot but support the Chinese companies in this respect, as we would be especially in trouble if the common models are the norm.
adastra22 1y ago
It is in their selfish interest to push for open weights. That's not to say they are being selfish, or to judge in any way the morality of their actions. But because of that incentive, you can't logically infer moral agency in their decision to release open-weights, IP-free CPUs, etc.
- sporkxrocket 1y ago
  Leaving China aside, it's arguably immoral that our leading AI models are closed and concentrated in the hands of billionaires with questionable ethical histories (at best).
- jncfhnb 1y ago
  By selfish interests you mean the public good?

pg3uk 1y ago

Depends on whether you want to be in it. A ladder might be enough to peek over the top and rip it off. Do it better. Which seems to be what is happening.

BobbyJo 1y ago
That only works for China's domestic market. As long as the IP they are "taking inspiration from" is protected in the target markets, they effectively lock themselves out by doing that. In the case of technology like RISC, pretty much all the value add is unprotected, so they can sell those products in the US/EU without issue.