6 ms·

So far it's only US doing this. I don't think it's in anyone else's interest to limit development of open source models or chips. Nvidia has secured a leading p

by oytis 4mo ago

So far it's only US doing this. I don't think it's in anyone else's interest to limit development of open source models or chips. Nvidia has secured a leading position in GPU market by being the best overall, but if US continues to mess up with the export, that changes the calculation and surely we'll see the alternatives

lanthissa 4mo ago
the only people its relevant for is the people in first. We wont know what any other state would do until someone passes the us, if that happens. it sucks that we're in a place where the us has an dishonest leadership, because the current situation would be pretty reasonable if any other admin was in charge. let models go free, until one proves dangerous in the real world then require gov approval after that. I don't think anyone rational would have the position everyone should have insta access at the same time to the highest model once it crosses the point of enabling actual dangerous things.
ericmay 4mo ago
Any country that developed sufficiently advanced models will pursue the same path. The EU as a regulatory body would pursue the same path, as will/is China. It’s rather straightforward to think through. If China (they’re practically the only competitor) built a sufficiently advanced AI system would they allow it to propagate on the free market? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that they are behind, even if it’s just a little bit, so the best strategy they have is to try and compete with “good enough” models with lower/subsidized cost - but that is a losing strategy because AI is and always has been a winner-take-all strategy. Likewise if, idk, France someone built an AI system that was valuable do you think they’d just hand it over for sworn enemy Donald J. Trump to utilized? Of course not. The American strategy in the context of the current geopolitical landscape is the only valid one and the obvious one. If you find yourself criticizing the American strategy it’s because you aren’t in the arena where you would, inevitably, make the same decision to restrict access.
- janalsncm 4mo ago
  > AI is and always has been a winner-take-all strategy People claim that AGI is. AI is turning out to be a fairly competitive but “normal” product. Companies carving out niches on cost, quality, and speed. If it was a winner take all OpenAI’s head start would have been decisive. For years ChatGPT was far ahead of everyone, then Anthropic released Opus 3, then OpenAI released 4o, then in mid 2025 it seemed like everyone had strong reasoning models including Google with Gemini 2.5, and now Claude is probably the best coding model. So taking the top spot is not a guarantee you can hold it. Also the top model becomes a prime target for distillation, making it easier for competitors to keep up.
  - Razengan 4mo ago
    > and now Claude is probably the best coding model Do people who keep saying this actually used Claude side by side with other models? Because in my experience it turned out to be hilariously crap: https://i.imgur.com/jYawPDY.png https://i.imgur.com/jYawPDY.png
    - prmoustache 4mo ago
      Can a model turn crap? shouldn't it be consistent once realized? Isn't it probably Anthropic facing capacity problems and comitting fraud by silently routing you to smaller models for the price of the current Claude?
    - _3u10 4mo ago
      I don’t think they have. I used to think that Claude sucked because of the harness so I tried it on opencode and it was still trash. I’m sure if the primary problem I was solving was multi file complex exploits it would be better but even that I am not sure of. I’ve always found the it’s too dangerous claims to be a bit underwhelming.
    - janalsncm 3mo ago
      The point is that if AI was really a winner-takes-all technology it would have meant OpenAI’s models would have been unequivocally better, permanently.

by oytis 4mo ago

lanthissa 4mo ago

the only people its relevant for is the people in first. We wont know what any other state would do until someone passes the us, if that happens. it sucks that we're in a place where the us has an dishonest leadership, because the current situation would be pretty reasonable if any other admin was in charge. let models go free, until one proves dangerous in the real world then require gov approval after that. I don't think anyone rational would have the position everyone should have insta access at the same time to the highest model once it crosses the point of enabling actual dangerous things.

ericmay 4mo ago

Any country that developed sufficiently advanced models will pursue the same path. The EU as a regulatory body would pursue the same path, as will/is China. It’s rather straightforward to think through. If China (they’re practically the only competitor) built a sufficiently advanced AI system would they allow it to propagate on the free market? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that they are behind, even if it’s just a little bit, so the best strategy they have is to try and compete with “good enough” models with lower/subsidized cost - but that is a losing strategy because AI is and always has been a winner-take-all strategy. Likewise if, idk, France someone built an AI system that was valuable do you think they’d just hand it over for sworn enemy Donald J. Trump to utilized? Of course not. The American strategy in the context of the current geopolitical landscape is the only valid one and the obvious one. If you find yourself criticizing the American strategy it’s because you aren’t in the arena where you would, inevitably, make the same decision to restrict access.

janalsncm 4mo ago
> AI is and always has been a winner-take-all strategy People claim that AGI is. AI is turning out to be a fairly competitive but “normal” product. Companies carving out niches on cost, quality, and speed. If it was a winner take all OpenAI’s head start would have been decisive. For years ChatGPT was far ahead of everyone, then Anthropic released Opus 3, then OpenAI released 4o, then in mid 2025 it seemed like everyone had strong reasoning models including Google with Gemini 2.5, and now Claude is probably the best coding model. So taking the top spot is not a guarantee you can hold it. Also the top model becomes a prime target for distillation, making it easier for competitors to keep up.
- Razengan 4mo ago
  > and now Claude is probably the best coding model Do people who keep saying this actually used Claude side by side with other models? Because in my experience it turned out to be hilariously crap: https://i.imgur.com/jYawPDY.png https://i.imgur.com/jYawPDY.png
  - prmoustache 4mo ago
    Can a model turn crap? shouldn't it be consistent once realized? Isn't it probably Anthropic facing capacity problems and comitting fraud by silently routing you to smaller models for the price of the current Claude?
  - _3u10 4mo ago
    I don’t think they have. I used to think that Claude sucked because of the harness so I tried it on opencode and it was still trash. I’m sure if the primary problem I was solving was multi file complex exploits it would be better but even that I am not sure of. I’ve always found the it’s too dangerous claims to be a bit underwhelming.
  - janalsncm 3mo ago
    The point is that if AI was really a winner-takes-all technology it would have meant OpenAI’s models would have been unequivocally better, permanently.