3 ms·

Legally gray practices? Such as what? Old politicians who barely understand how to use e-mail had a panic attack due to Anthropics marketing about Mythos and b

by villish 3mo ago

Legally gray practices? Such as what? Old politicians who barely understand how to use e-mail had a panic attack due to Anthropics marketing about Mythos and being told that Chinese models were "attacking" (distillation) US frontier labs to train theirs. They pull the only lever they could in an attempt to stop it, but again, they don't understand how any of it works. The export ban lasted a few weeks yet everyone keeps crying about it like the US is shady. In reality the entire world is 100% dependent on the output of US and China for frontier AI. Anyone outside of those two countries will be loud about either closing off access. I personally think it is inevitable that China and the US stops producing frontier level open models when they become too valuable.

bigyabai 3mo ago
> I personally think it is inevitable that China and the US stops producing frontier level open models when they become too valuable. This reads like a paradox, though. If the value of a FOSS model comes from pushing the local frontier, then FOSS releases will be even more attractive in a world with highly capable AI services. The underdog researchers will be motivated to train smaller LLMs that close the gap with the most newest architectures and improvements, democratizing those same benefits to local models. There's not really anything that stops them, besides finding an investor. The US already has top secret AI technology like the NRO's Sentient. The danger is less the architecture, and more the data that it has access to and the technology that it interfaces with. Most people aren't entirely convinced that AI will ever be "too valuable" in the first place.
- villish 3mo ago
  > Most people aren't entirely convinced that AI will ever be "too valuable" in the first place. There will be a generational leap that makes current LLMs obsolete in every way. Let's say China gets there first, why would the CCP let it be released publicly? That is an insanely valuable advantage in everything from war fighting to economics and more. Humans for millennia have used technological advances to make better weapons. AI will be no different, unfortunately. Wars will be fought with drones and artificial intelligence from now on.
  - marcus_holmes 3mo ago
    > Let's say China gets there first, why would the CCP let it be released publicly? That is an insanely valuable advantage in everything from war fighting to economics and more. Because China is based in a completely different set of values than the USA. They look at the world differently, and have a different understanding of it. Your assumption that your attitude is pure human nature is deeply grounded in your culture, which (assuming you are from the USA) is deeply grounded in personal competition rather than co-operation. All that rugged individualism. Other cultures are less based around that, and don't see the world as a zero-sum competition for survival. I'm no expert in Chinese culture, but there are folks from China on this topic who could probably answer this from their perspective.
    - breezybottom 3mo ago
      "I'm no expert in Chinese culture" You've made that plenty clear.
      - owebmaster 3mo ago
        Are you an expert?
      - marcus_holmes 3mo ago
        What a bizarre comment to make.
    - Gormo 3mo ago
      Culture does not exist in a vacuum -- it's downstream of fundamental human motivations that are manifest in all times and places. And using "culture" as a general concept to dismiss concerns about specific behavior, without actually attempting to posit any particular cultural values, or describe what mechanism actually causes those values to have a determinant effect on behavior, is equivalent to saying nothing at all. Whatever official party line the current Chinese government espouses, it's plenty clear from even a cursory understanding of Chinese history, from the Warring States period to the warlord-era conflicts of the early 20th century, to the current behavior of the CCP, that China does not have any effective cultural guardrail against factions seeking advantage over opposing factions, which is a phenomenon that has been present in all societies that have ever existed in human history.

by villish 3mo ago

bigyabai 3mo ago

> I personally think it is inevitable that China and the US stops producing frontier level open models when they become too valuable. This reads like a paradox, though. If the value of a FOSS model comes from pushing the local frontier, then FOSS releases will be even more attractive in a world with highly capable AI services. The underdog researchers will be motivated to train smaller LLMs that close the gap with the most newest architectures and improvements, democratizing those same benefits to local models. There's not really anything that stops them, besides finding an investor. The US already has top secret AI technology like the NRO's Sentient. The danger is less the architecture, and more the data that it has access to and the technology that it interfaces with. Most people aren't entirely convinced that AI will ever be "too valuable" in the first place.

villish 3mo ago
> Most people aren't entirely convinced that AI will ever be "too valuable" in the first place. There will be a generational leap that makes current LLMs obsolete in every way. Let's say China gets there first, why would the CCP let it be released publicly? That is an insanely valuable advantage in everything from war fighting to economics and more. Humans for millennia have used technological advances to make better weapons. AI will be no different, unfortunately. Wars will be fought with drones and artificial intelligence from now on.
- marcus_holmes 3mo ago
  > Let's say China gets there first, why would the CCP let it be released publicly? That is an insanely valuable advantage in everything from war fighting to economics and more. Because China is based in a completely different set of values than the USA. They look at the world differently, and have a different understanding of it. Your assumption that your attitude is pure human nature is deeply grounded in your culture, which (assuming you are from the USA) is deeply grounded in personal competition rather than co-operation. All that rugged individualism. Other cultures are less based around that, and don't see the world as a zero-sum competition for survival. I'm no expert in Chinese culture, but there are folks from China on this topic who could probably answer this from their perspective.
  - breezybottom 3mo ago
    "I'm no expert in Chinese culture" You've made that plenty clear.
    - owebmaster 3mo ago
      Are you an expert?
    - marcus_holmes 3mo ago
      What a bizarre comment to make.
  - Gormo 3mo ago
    Culture does not exist in a vacuum -- it's downstream of fundamental human motivations that are manifest in all times and places. And using "culture" as a general concept to dismiss concerns about specific behavior, without actually attempting to posit any particular cultural values, or describe what mechanism actually causes those values to have a determinant effect on behavior, is equivalent to saying nothing at all. Whatever official party line the current Chinese government espouses, it's plenty clear from even a cursory understanding of Chinese history, from the Warring States period to the warlord-era conflicts of the early 20th century, to the current behavior of the CCP, that China does not have any effective cultural guardrail against factions seeking advantage over opposing factions, which is a phenomenon that has been present in all societies that have ever existed in human history.