5 ms·
GLM export controls incoming? I predict Commerce will force OpenRouter, HuggingFace to take some open models down within the next few months. Not that it would
by solenoid0937 4mo ago
GLM export controls incoming? I predict Commerce will force OpenRouter, HuggingFace to take some open models down within the next few months.
Not that it would make any sense.
- gruez 4mo ago>GLM export controls incoming? US imposing export restrictions on a model from China?
- manquer 4mo agoWhile unlikely , it is not without precedent , there are restrictions on ASML a Dutch company to sell EUV machines
- verdverm 4mo agoASML complies as an ally, why would China comply? The weights are already available and downloaded, is it going to be a crime to have them, run them, make them available? Constitutional rights still exist (I hope)
- solenoid0937 4mo ago> is it going to be a crime to have them, run them, make them available? Now you're getting it! Commerce will call it a munition and those harboring it as harboring illegal/foreign munitions. No business will take the hit, so they will quickly deplatform the models. No end user has the GPU capacity to use GLM 5.2 or similar models at full precision so the government will call the problem "mostly solved." But they might choose to "make examples" out of a few people using p2p software to download the weights if they choose to.
- verdverm 4mo agoOr we use the models to work on fixing vulns and stop over-blowing the doom scenarios. Gotta save the kids and kill the terrorists though! I'm for making software better instead of banning it based on what the rich and powerful claim. I suspect the real fear is that open weight models undermine the financials and token prices they thought were going to pay off their ludicrous spending because they have all raced and raised hardware prices.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- solenoid0937 4mo ago> making software better instead of banning it That would be the rational thing to do. > financials and token prices I do not think the government thinks this deeply. Market manipulation might be a rational, if unethical reason to ban open source models. But this admin banned Anthropic models to "own the libs." They will continue to ban what they want for whatever reason they want. I don't think those reasons will be particularly coherent.
- verdverm 4mo agoYeah, the current admin is reactionary, they appear to put little thought in, or at least disregard input they dislike. I don't think Ant's ban was about "owning the libs" as much as it was asserting dominance over someone who spoke up counter to the admin's aims and claims. They do listen to money, which is where I see Big Ai paying for executive orders (because the admin forgot what it means to compromise as part of legislating for all americans).
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- hadlock 4mo ago> making software better instead of banning it We're still in the middle of the cambrian explosion. If Anthropic was capable of developing Opus 4.49-4.5 2H 2025.... then any company with a research team capable of reading all the papers and press releases will be capable of producing Opus 4.8 by the end of 2027, either raw model competency, or in a harness like claude code (or better with both). I guess what I am trying to say is that Opus 4.5 does not represent the edge of agentic capability, merely somewhere in the thick meaty layer of "functional and achievable". We can draw the line at Sonnet 4.6 in the US but much like encryption export restrictions in the 1980s, the line drawn will be laughably low within a few years and simply unthinkable in a decade.
- matheusmoreira 4mo ago> it going to be a crime to have them, run them, make them available? Yeah. Illegal numbers.
- fragmede 4mo agoDeCss was short enough to fit in a t-shirt. Americans are larger these days, but not by enough to fit a decent LLM's weights on an XXXXL shirt, even double sided.
- manquer 4mo agoThat too has precedence , there is long history of controls of cryptographic algorithms up until the 90s. It wasn't abstract either, older greybeards would remember browsers like Netscape had two versions International and U.S. for this reason. If you classify AI as a weapon which seems to be the direction that we are all heading towards, they yes first amendment rights won't likely apply.
- throwup238 4mo agoThat’s because the Department of Energy originally funded and contributed IP to the EUV Corp joint venture between several semiconductor companies (including ASML and Intel). Their ability to export control EUV was part of that original agreement that the entire technology is built on.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- mcintyre1994 4mo agoIt’d be restrictions on Americans and American companies, and probably also pressure on America’s allies.
- mkagenius 4mo agoToken smuggler sounds like a profession coming soon. For distillation and stuff.
- addandsubtract 4mo agoI mean, there are already places where you can buy tokens at 10% of their original cost.
- fph 4mo agoHow would that even work for an open-weight model?
- bardak 4mo agoGo after the hosts, 99% of people won't be able to run this locally even if they wanted to.
- Art9681 4mo agoThey can easily issue an order for any American company to stop hosting/serving the models. If the model was a threat to national security because of its capabilities then a lot of other countries would follow, including China. No nation will allow some vibe coder with a rogue AI to pose a threat to their systems. The reason GLM-5.2 hasn't been banned is that despite these cherry picked use cases, GLM-5.2 isn't even close to Opus in all use cases. These vibe benchmarks are ran by companies that are not part of the cyber services offered by Anthropic and OpenAI where they can use the models without the safeguards and refusals so their actual cyber capabilities can be utilized. These guys that wrote the article compared a gimped Opus to GLM-5.2, knew full well it's misleading, and got the clicks regardless. They don't have enough clout to be a part of something like Project Glasswing, GPT Cyber, etc.
- rgbrenner 4mo agoIf that happens it'll be an absolute disaster. Imagine a scenario where Anthropic and OpenAI prohibit most US companies from using their latest models because of safety.. And meanwhile attackers use equivalent open source models to attack US companies. Any prohibition on open source models will do nothing to fix the problem.. since attackers will never feel bound to the law. All advanced models must be available for defensive purposes.
- andy99 4mo agoRight, but is there any evidence of intelligence behind any of these (government) decisions? It’s just regulatory capture + marketing (plus some people living out an imaginary fantasy that they’re in Neuromancer or something), absolutely no reason to think they won’t try and target open models as part of this.
- popalchemist 4mo agoThere's at least one reason: much harder to make a profit in policing non-american companies and open-source models without huge (or even any) MRR. If the real motive is profit, then open source models are likely simply not a viable means to that end.
- solenoid0937 4mo ago> since attackers will never feel bound to the law. But that's the whole point. Fall out of favor with the admin and you lose access to the good American models, aren't allowed to use Chinese ones, and fall prey to the attackers and behind your competitors.
- lenerdenator 4mo agoIt'd be less about "safety" and more "we've spent trillions developing these AI tools only to have the Chinese, once again, copy them and offer them for pennies on the dollar, and no one seems to care about the impact that has on the long-term sustainability of this sector of the American economy as a whole, so we're yanking the models."
- djeastm 4mo agoI think state-of-the-art AI is going to be defense industry only from now on. We can have our toy drones but not the Predators and Reapers.
- serf 4mo agothe things that empower modern toy drones were export restricted for years before hand.
- Gigachad 4mo agoTurns out toy drones are more useful in war than multi million dollar planes anyway.
- techpression 4mo agoReaper and Predator are both drones and there’s really no comparison to toy drones in terms of sheer destruction and capabilities in general, the comparison is actually quite apt imo.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- fragmede 4mo agoWhich ones are the ones Ukraine has used to bomb Moscow?
- nozzlegear 4mo agoUkraine would absolutely use Reaper and Predator drones if they had access to them.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoYou're right. Toy drones have proven vastly more effective IRL. The others are a waste of taxpayer money. Extraordinarily low return on investment (kill-on-investment?)
- aussiegreenie 4mo agoThe Americans may ban the use of the Chinese models in America. But like the Chinese car ban, everyone else will use them.
- lenerdenator 4mo agoThat's not necessarily a good thing for everyone else, mind. Yes, you get your free model, but the cost of this is not developing your own capability and tying your fate to a country which may or may not have your best interests as a nation in mind. This is just the deindustrialization that occurred in my home region (the American Midwest) playing out on a global scale in different sectors. It was originally driven by the Japanese, who, to their credit, acted more as partners than competition. Eventually that desire for larger margins went to China, and now you basically can't build anything of consequence without at least some Chinese parts, because there's "no economic case" for it. This means that you have to play Beijing's game if you want access to any sort of modern market. You see this happening with Volkswagen's restructuring, next you'll see it with non-American, non-Chinese AI.
- singpolyma3 4mo agoIt's not really the same because we already have the model. If China stopped letting us have it tomorrow I'd doesn't matter because... We have it already
- chillfox 4mo agoSo... how's that any different from using American stuff for those of us in the rest of the world? Over the last decade, the US has been way more unreliable than China. There's been a near constant negative impact from the US doing something. At least with China, we are very good at winning trade wars with them here in Australia.
- lenerdenator 4mo agoYou might feel differently if you were a Filipino or Vietnamese fisherman whose family relied on the income from the stocks of the South China Sea, or a Uighur person living in Western China, or a Ukrainian soldier who has to deal with drones built with Chinese components, or a democracy advocate in Hong Kong, or arguably, a person who had plans for 2020-2021. Or, on a more local note, an Australian automotive worker who worked for a company that figured out 10 years ago that they wouldn't be able to pay him a decent wage, compete with the then-upcoming Chinese EVs, and remain profitable.
- dakolli 4mo agoCool then everyone will just change their config to route through a provider overseas for an added 50-100ms latency. Who cares.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoCountries and businesses that don't want to be sanctioned by the US government or the US financial system care - so all western countries and corporations.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- skissane 4mo ago> GLM export controls incoming? I predict Commerce will force OpenRouter, HuggingFace to take some open models down within the next few months. I’m sceptical they could find the legal framework to do this even if they wanted to They have legal authority to (a) prevent export of US goods/services; (b) ban imports of physical goods; (c) ban transactions (including purchasing services or license agreements) with foreign firms But I’m not aware of any legal authority which lets them ban US firms from running a Chinese-developed open source AI model in the United States, if they are at arms length from the vendor, and aren’t using it for government contracts or regulated applications Possibly they could order HuggingFace/etc to suspend Chinese accounts. But if someone in the US (or a third country) downloads the model from China then reuploads it to a US server, completely independently of the vendor - where is the legal hook to prohibit that?
- bardak 4mo agoThey could ban payment processors from processing payments to any hosts of GML 5.2, despite the open weights the vast majority of people will be using cloud providers to get access since it is to heavy to host for 99% of people. This would be extremely heavy handed and probably end up accelerating the loss of the virtual US monopoly of payment network. The reast of the world isn't going to let the US dictate that only they get the frontier models whether their US made or otherwise
- skissane 4mo ago> They could ban payment processors from processing payments to any hosts of GML 5.2 Can they actually though? Do they have legal authority to tell a payment processor that it has to block transactions of a legal US company, just because the company is hosting a Chinese-developed open source model? I’m sceptical And what about companies (e.g. AWS) that let you “bring your own model”?
- bardak 4mo agoIt would be extremely heavy handed but the administration has sanctioned the International Criminal Court judges such that they basically have no access to the Wests modern financial system. I think domestic US providers would have to deal with different ways but someone like Herzner could easily be cut off from the financial system if the administration doesn't feel that they are adequately blocking the model
- mullingitover 4mo agoObvious answer: build all your open source LLMs into firearms, get the SC to grant 2A protections.