3 ms·

I think that's an overgeneralization. We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start. Meanwhile the non-American (especially the Ch

by culi 6mo ago

I think that's an overgeneralization. We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start. Meanwhile the non-American (especially the Chinese ones) have been open since the start. In fact they often go the opposite direction. Many Chinese models started off proprietary and then were later opened up (like many of the larger Qwen models)

embedding-shape 6mo ago
> We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start. Most*. OpenAI, contrary to popular belief, actually used to believe in open research and (more or less) open models. GPT1 and GPT2 both were model+code releases (although GPT2 was a "staged" release), GPT3 ended up API-only.
- zozbot234 6mo ago
  OpenAI has released their GPT-OSS series more recently.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - magicalhippo 6mo ago
    Recently, more like 20 years ago in LLM-years. It's a good model though, would be nice with a refresh.
- culi 6mo ago
  That's fair but those days seem so long gone now. Also the Chinese models aren't following a typical American SaaS playbook which relies on free/cheap proprietary software for early growth. They are not just publishing their weights but also their code and often even publishing papers in Open Access journals to explicitly highlight what methods and advancements were made to accomplish their results
  - zozbot234 6mo ago
    The Nvidia Nemotron models are recent, and of course the Gemma 4 series from Google.
  - taneq 6mo ago
    gasp Science!
  - tasuki 6mo ago
    Any idea why they do that?
    - salad-tycoon 6mo ago
      If the question is why Chinese models are contributing to open source and sharing of information, I don’t pretend to know the rationale but I think it’s because it’s an economic war. I think the Chinese models have to be more open to increase trust as everyone is worried they are feeding their very essence/soul into a Chinese copying machine. Also China wants there to be viable competitors so that US can’t just dominate a potentially very important field. It’s a challenge to a unipolar USA dominated world. Also it helps to spur Chinese companies in the all important microchip industry which is controlled by a very small number of companies at various steps in the supply chain. I wonder too if it allows them to hold an ace in their hand as well in terms of threat/power for negotiations. As in, they can cause the whole house of cards to crumble, an economic nuclear weapon so to speak. Finally, there is a certain amount of prestige involved too. China can compete or even win at a very complicated game. They use it to increase national pride and to project their advancing power status to other nations. Anyways, just my thoughts. Interested in others thoughts.
  - jfoster 6mo ago
    > those days seem so long gone now. Well, Musk v OpenAI kicks off in one week from now with the objective of forcing them back to their roots. A jury will be deciding whether a nonprofit accepting $50m - $100m of donations and then discarding their mission for an IPO is OK or not. Should be interesting.
robot_jesus 6mo ago
> We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start What about Gemma and Llama and gpt-oss, not to mention lots of smaller/specialized models from Nvidia and others? I would never argue that China isn't ahead in the open weights game, of course, but it's not like it's "all" American models by any stretch.
- walthamstow 6mo ago
  gpt-oss is good but I haven't heard anything about an update. It seems like one and done, to shut up people complaining about non-Open AI
- InkCanon 6mo ago
  The more accurate version is only Chinese companies (plus Facebook briefly) really open source their frontier models. The rest are non frontier. They are either older or specialized for something.
- 1dom 6mo ago
  It's all openwashing, all of the ones you listed at somepoint have expressed how important and valuable open weights and locally usable models are. Every single one of them has then increasingly focused and pushed closed, proprietary or cloud usable only options since saying/doing that. I'm annoyed at myself, because I thought/hoped/praised chinese AI when they were opening up as Llama was closing, but Qwen looks to be doing the same playbook here as Llama/Meta, Gemma/Google and OpenAI/gpt-oss.
3836293648 6mo ago
GPT started off open? They just closed before anyone else even joined the space

by culi 6mo ago

embedding-shape 6mo ago

> We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start. Most*. OpenAI, contrary to popular belief, actually used to believe in open research and (more or less) open models. GPT1 and GPT2 both were model+code releases (although GPT2 was a "staged" release), GPT3 ended up API-only.

zozbot234 6mo ago
OpenAI has released their GPT-OSS series more recently.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- magicalhippo 6mo ago
  Recently, more like 20 years ago in LLM-years. It's a good model though, would be nice with a refresh.
culi 6mo ago
That's fair but those days seem so long gone now. Also the Chinese models aren't following a typical American SaaS playbook which relies on free/cheap proprietary software for early growth. They are not just publishing their weights but also their code and often even publishing papers in Open Access journals to explicitly highlight what methods and advancements were made to accomplish their results
- zozbot234 6mo ago
  The Nvidia Nemotron models are recent, and of course the Gemma 4 series from Google.
- taneq 6mo ago
  gasp Science!
- tasuki 6mo ago
  Any idea why they do that?
  - salad-tycoon 6mo ago
    If the question is why Chinese models are contributing to open source and sharing of information, I don’t pretend to know the rationale but I think it’s because it’s an economic war. I think the Chinese models have to be more open to increase trust as everyone is worried they are feeding their very essence/soul into a Chinese copying machine. Also China wants there to be viable competitors so that US can’t just dominate a potentially very important field. It’s a challenge to a unipolar USA dominated world. Also it helps to spur Chinese companies in the all important microchip industry which is controlled by a very small number of companies at various steps in the supply chain. I wonder too if it allows them to hold an ace in their hand as well in terms of threat/power for negotiations. As in, they can cause the whole house of cards to crumble, an economic nuclear weapon so to speak. Finally, there is a certain amount of prestige involved too. China can compete or even win at a very complicated game. They use it to increase national pride and to project their advancing power status to other nations. Anyways, just my thoughts. Interested in others thoughts.
- jfoster 6mo ago
  > those days seem so long gone now. Well, Musk v OpenAI kicks off in one week from now with the objective of forcing them back to their roots. A jury will be deciding whether a nonprofit accepting $50m - $100m of donations and then discarding their mission for an IPO is OK or not. Should be interesting.

robot_jesus 6mo ago

> We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start What about Gemma and Llama and gpt-oss, not to mention lots of smaller/specialized models from Nvidia and others? I would never argue that China isn't ahead in the open weights game, of course, but it's not like it's "all" American models by any stretch.

walthamstow 6mo ago
gpt-oss is good but I haven't heard anything about an update. It seems like one and done, to shut up people complaining about non-Open AI
InkCanon 6mo ago
The more accurate version is only Chinese companies (plus Facebook briefly) really open source their frontier models. The rest are non frontier. They are either older or specialized for something.
1dom 6mo ago
It's all openwashing, all of the ones you listed at somepoint have expressed how important and valuable open weights and locally usable models are. Every single one of them has then increasingly focused and pushed closed, proprietary or cloud usable only options since saying/doing that. I'm annoyed at myself, because I thought/hoped/praised chinese AI when they were opening up as Llama was closing, but Qwen looks to be doing the same playbook here as Llama/Meta, Gemma/Google and OpenAI/gpt-oss.

3836293648 6mo ago

GPT started off open? They just closed before anyone else even joined the space