6 ms·

>GLM export controls incoming? US imposing export restrictions on a model from China?

• manquer 4mo ago
  While unlikely , it is not without precedent , there are restrictions on ASML a Dutch company to sell EUV machines
  • verdverm 4mo ago
    ASML 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 ago
        Or 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 ago
            Yeah, 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 ago
        DeCss 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 ago
      That 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 ago
    That’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 ago
  It’d be restrictions on Americans and American companies, and probably also pressure on America’s allies.
  • mkagenius 4mo ago
    Token smuggler sounds like a profession coming soon. For distillation and stuff.
    • addandsubtract 4mo ago
      I mean, there are already places where you can buy tokens at 10% of their original cost.
• fph 4mo ago
  How would that even work for an open-weight model?
  • bardak 4mo ago
    Go after the hosts, 99% of people won't be able to run this locally even if they wanted to.
• Art9681 4mo ago
  They 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.