4 ms·

I would imagine if it isn't illegal its a very bad idea not to. But regardless, I would bet large amounts of money that you would never get any flack for doing

I would imagine if it isn't illegal its a very bad idea not to. But regardless, I would bet large amounts of money that you would never get any flack for doing anything for the government. If I went on X, Threads, Bluesky, TikTok and said "Hey I am a software engineer selling awesome new technology to the government and military!" I am going to get Americans attacking me for supporting Trump / ICE / FBI whatever the current issue of the day is. If I did the same on Douyin or Weibo the response would be able making China strong, and there would be no criticism of that choice.

cmrdporcupine 8mo ago
Sure, but the difference is that while the Chinese state is measurably awful on all sorts of human rights things within their own borders... they're not currently dropping bombs on foreign cities, starving a neighbour of critical petroleum shipments, or heavily funding an ally to slowly exterminate a population.
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  What point are you trying to make here? Are government abuses somehow inherently better or worse depending on where they happen? Do you imagine an invasion of Taiwan won't involve dropping bombs? I feel like we should be able to agree that providing authoritarian regimes with high tech tools is immoral in the general case.
  - cmrdporcupine 8mo ago
    My point is as a non-American I feel no allegiance to either state, and current events don't make me sympathetic to the geo-political aims of the USA. So I don't see a strong moral case for this tech being an especial purvey of either party. If you'd asked me two years ago my answer might have been different. And to the original point, yeah, I would feel entirely justified in the critique of engineers in providing tools to the US defense apparatus at this point. At least the Chinese shops are giving their weights away for free, and not demanding that any government ban the rest.
    - sciencejerk 8mo ago
      Why are they giving them away for free?
      - fc417fc802 8mo ago
        Why did Meta release theirs? The better question is, why not? If you aren't at the cutting edge and don't have a moat then releasing them is pure reputational upside with zero downside.
        sciencejerk 8mo ago
        The research costs are not free. The businesses need to recoup the cost in some way shape or form, even if in the long term. Seems expensive as an anti-moat to detrench competitors
        fc417fc802 8mo ago
        It's a winner take almost all competition. Baring a moat, if you aren't at the cutting edge you won't be able to recoup the cost regardless. At that point you might as well release it to the public for reputation. You might even get lucky and someone else does the same. If you manage to learn from their example you might be more competitive in a future round.
        cmrdporcupine 8mo ago
        For China it's an existential threat. They cannot let US corporations have exclusive control over this. And they are unlikely to catch up. So by tossing open weights model (note: not open source) out there for the public to use, they are destroying the possibility that Dario and SamA can build a monopoly/duopoly. I think we are now in the era of oligarchies, and oligarchies maintain power by being highwaymen and extracting tolls, in a kind of rentier capitalist structure. By throwing LLM models out into the commons, China is disrupting the possibility of this taking hold there. God bless 'em
MarsIronPI 8mo ago
> If I did the same on Douyin or Weibo the response would be able making China strong, and there would be no criticism of that choice. Right, because in China if you were criticized for helping the government, the people who criticized you would be in for (probably life-damaging) trouble.

cmrdporcupine 8mo ago

Sure, but the difference is that while the Chinese state is measurably awful on all sorts of human rights things within their own borders... they're not currently dropping bombs on foreign cities, starving a neighbour of critical petroleum shipments, or heavily funding an ally to slowly exterminate a population.

fc417fc802 8mo ago
What point are you trying to make here? Are government abuses somehow inherently better or worse depending on where they happen? Do you imagine an invasion of Taiwan won't involve dropping bombs? I feel like we should be able to agree that providing authoritarian regimes with high tech tools is immoral in the general case.
- cmrdporcupine 8mo ago
  My point is as a non-American I feel no allegiance to either state, and current events don't make me sympathetic to the geo-political aims of the USA. So I don't see a strong moral case for this tech being an especial purvey of either party. If you'd asked me two years ago my answer might have been different. And to the original point, yeah, I would feel entirely justified in the critique of engineers in providing tools to the US defense apparatus at this point. At least the Chinese shops are giving their weights away for free, and not demanding that any government ban the rest.
  - sciencejerk 8mo ago
    Why are they giving them away for free?
    - fc417fc802 8mo ago
      Why did Meta release theirs? The better question is, why not? If you aren't at the cutting edge and don't have a moat then releasing them is pure reputational upside with zero downside.
      - sciencejerk 8mo ago
        The research costs are not free. The businesses need to recoup the cost in some way shape or form, even if in the long term. Seems expensive as an anti-moat to detrench competitors
        fc417fc802 8mo ago
        It's a winner take almost all competition. Baring a moat, if you aren't at the cutting edge you won't be able to recoup the cost regardless. At that point you might as well release it to the public for reputation. You might even get lucky and someone else does the same. If you manage to learn from their example you might be more competitive in a future round.
        cmrdporcupine 8mo ago
        For China it's an existential threat. They cannot let US corporations have exclusive control over this. And they are unlikely to catch up. So by tossing open weights model (note: not open source) out there for the public to use, they are destroying the possibility that Dario and SamA can build a monopoly/duopoly. I think we are now in the era of oligarchies, and oligarchies maintain power by being highwaymen and extracting tolls, in a kind of rentier capitalist structure. By throwing LLM models out into the commons, China is disrupting the possibility of this taking hold there. God bless 'em

MarsIronPI 8mo ago

> If I did the same on Douyin or Weibo the response would be able making China strong, and there would be no criticism of that choice. Right, because in China if you were criticized for helping the government, the people who criticized you would be in for (probably life-damaging) trouble.