9 ms·
OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line
- cloudie78 3mo agoThey can go pound sand.
- Havoc 3mo agoThis feels like the US is going to take a page from Europes book and regulate itself into uncompetitiveness
- close04 3mo agoExcept without any of the benefits of regulation to its citizens.
- testfrequency 3mo agoExactly. Europe regulates to protect humanity. USA regulates to protect monopolies and political power
- smallmancontrov 3mo agoYep. Growing up, I always defaulted to the "enlightened centrist" perspective that antitrust law and IP law and trade law were failing to help the median person simply due to the difficulty of the problem, that insofar as our regulation was inadequate it was inadequate because it had to balance multiple crossed incentives and stay ahead of world class sprinters who had a systemic resource advantage because the economy will always be larger than the regulators. But the more I learn about the history of these subjects the more I realize that the levers were understood, they did work, and that the present outcomes were entirely intentional. Reagan and the Chicago school intentionally shifted antitrust and IP law into monopoly mode (Bork and Bowman+Posner). The Consumer Welfare Standard is an obvious fig-leaf over Robber Baron talking points as defeated earlier by Brandeis, the Nine No-Nos (lol) indicate that the failure modes of modern IP policy weren't just understood but contained, and then containment was turned off. Trade is a messier story but Triffin articulated the distributional problems in the 60s so nobody gets to claim ignorance. The bad news is that there is more corruption that I thought, but the good news is that the problems are more solvable than I thought.
- embedding-shape 3mo agoThe point of regulation in Europe is usually to protect people. Regulation in the US seems to be done with the purpose of protection companies. I'm not 100% sure, but this feels non-ideal for most people.
- Sharlin 3mo agoTo take the point further, the US still protects people. It's just that the people tend to exclusively inhabit the top 0.1% or 0.01% quantiles.
- WarmWash 3mo agoMore like the top ~35%, but it's taboo to talk about that.
- aeve890 3mo agoWhat do you mean ~35% ?
- WarmWash 3mo agoI mean if you cut out the bottom 65% and the top 1% (but perhaps even top 5%) of americans, you are left with a group of generally affluent people who are the actual backbone of the US economy. These people work white collar career jobs, own houses, own stocks, have retirement on track, college debt paid off or soon to be, good health insurance, go on vacations, drive new(ish) cars, let their instagram impulse buying get a bit out of control sometimes, maybe they work from home or are hybrid, and they mostly all go out and vote. These people are the antithesis of "America is a Shithole", and they know it, so they keep their head down and point at the top 1% like everyone else. It's virtuous and pure to do so (and of course keeps the heat off them, the wealthiest contingent). If you isolate this group and compare them globally, it spells out why for decades so many white collar workers wanted to be in the US rather than Europe or the East.
- 3mo ago
- watwut 3mo agoThe winning monopolies and CEOs seem to be intent into turning into some kind of techno fascists feudalism with the most corrupt government on earth, uncontrollable start the war machine and increasingly less and generally destroying democracy. So, I am not sure it is such a win. These guys seem to be winning.
- Fricken 3mo agoEurope wins by knowing better than to play those games.
- wolttam 3mo agoNo way this can go wrong for the U.S. economy! Do everything you can to protect the existing incumbents, pay no mind to the wider consequences. Winning strategy.
- embedding-shape 3mo agoClearly worked for Oracle and Intel, who are still making their executives rich. What do you mean "average person", who gives a fuck about those?
- telep-io 3mo agoDoesn't help how the us gov is saying Kimi 3 stole IP of Fable even though it's not possible to distill Fable in 1 month.
- echelon 3mo agoThat's wild. It was only 15 days. It would have been impossible to gather enough data AND clean it up AND train AND do post training in just 15 days. edit: the Anthropic employee downvotes are coming in now. This was +8, now it's +3.
- luckystarr 3mo agoThen it's a case of trying to uphold the narrative?
- benjiro29 3mo ago> It was only 15 days. That, and usage was also half. Given the fact that we seen not any evidence beyond people "see, it one shot X game looks similar to Fable" (a lot of one shots look similar to other models). You expect to see something from Fable its restrictions/fallback behavior popping up in K3. You do not filter out all that behavior. Especially on such a short notice. For me the milk example, where somebody asked if some EU cheese's had type A/B milk type (they are allergic), triggering bio restriction prompts. That just shows you how hard it is to find all those restrictions because its not in obvious spots where Fable goes off. Yet, not a single person has shown this behavior in K3... The funny thing is, other Chinese companies can train on K3 when the open weight are released next week. So even if K3 was or was not trained on Fable, they already have a alternative to get their models to the same level.
- AJRF 3mo agoWho is in charge of AI strategy for the US? They are doing a terrible job!
- iugtmkbdfil834 3mo agoYou know what? That is fine based merely on recent openai/hugginface incident ( after all, they needed open weights model to actually troubleshoot it, because 'safe' one did not let em ). Let it all burn:D edit: And lets hope we learn a lesson.
- rogerrogerr 3mo agoThey also could have used their brains.
- iugtmkbdfil834 3mo agoI laughed, because it absolutely is an option and I dont see it happen.
- sschueller 3mo ago> And lets hope we learn a lesson. That is the last thing that will happen. We don't seem to ever learn a lesson.
- dgellow 3mo ago2008 could have been that time :(
- echelon 3mo agoI would rather we not lose the AI race so idiotically. Winning the AI race means letting OpenAI and Anthropic face market forces. Edit: Clearly other companies are doing well. ElevenLabs, Runway, FAL, RunPod, CoreWeave, Lambda, BaseTen, Lovable. These are real companies that didn't raise absurd amounts of capital. They've grown revenues at a solid clip, provide real value, and didn't go off the deep end with fundraising.
- rkozik1989 3mo agoHow are we winning? Nobody has actually created a business model that works yet. Just because you can hemorrhage hundreds of billions of dollars to build the most performant model doesn't necessarily mean you're going to make your money back.
- northernsausage 3mo agoThe other 95.8% of the world has entered the chat.
- sschueller 3mo agoThe US will try to force Europe to implement such restrictions as well.
- pseudony 3mo agoThey have had many "good" ideas about one-sided deals of late - usually served with a "or else..." and then the "or else" happens anyway. One wonders how many times that trick can be used. In fact, no need to wonder. Look around, the EU is busily spinning up arms industries, alternative payment platforms and expanding trade agreements with nearly everyone else. Yes. The US can try. But while we haven't filed for divorce yet, we are definitely looking elsewhere.
- JSR_FDED 3mo agoIf European companies host Chinese models there’s no way to make the usual “privacy” argument. Nor can they claim monopoly. What’s left then, ban math?
- echelon 3mo agoFuck these two companies. Fuck Sam and Dario. These fucking assholes want to selfishly sink our country and our competitiveness because their valuations are tied to a thin little moat, and they moronically raised way too much capital. They think regulation can save them, when in actuality it will doom all of us. Go to hell, OpenAI and Anthropic. Call your senators right now.
- sschueller 3mo agoThe problem isn't only them, it's all the greedy investors and enablers around them thinking they can hold the potato just long enough to enrich themselves before the whole things explodes. The "enablers" are the real problem and this is why Elon is still not behind bars.
- echelon 3mo agoIt's not wrong for capital to want returns. It's wrong to hold the entire rest of the market and economy hostage to protect your investment.
- wokkel 3mo agoI don't think senators will do a lot seeing the state of us politics at the moment (European perspective).
- throwa356262 3mo ago"Why it matters: ... The big picture: ... Zoom in:... Zoom out:..." I wonder if they used an American or Chinese LLM to write this article?
- ForHackernews 3mo agoNah, that's Axios house style for their readership of extremely busy/important illiterates.
- throwa356262 3mo agoYou are right, all their recent articles are written this way :( Still, if feels very LLM-y with their short sentences, definitive statements and a love for lists when none is needed. On the other hand, maybe Axios was such dominant component in the training dataset that now every LLM speaks like this...
- 65 3mo agoAxios has had this style for years and years, before ChatGPT came out.
- lantry 3mo agoI think axios has always used this style
- andy99 3mo agoYeah this makes it unreadable for me, immediately distracted by how stupid it is and lose interest in the article. As someone else noted, it’s people who think they are writing for an “executive” audience that have never been within 100 feet of an executive.
- TeMPOraL 3mo agoI bounced off that at first, too, but I'm glad I revisited. It's exactly what I wanted from most news. All the relevant information up front. None of the bullshit of regular news reporting.
- randomname4325 3mo agoIronic that US companies are monopolistically pushing FUD for regulation and China is pushing open source to the world. How the tables have turned. The reality is the AI trade and "bubble" is masking an otherwise flat, inflated economy. History tells us that the US position doesn't end well.
- mosura 3mo agoThe fact these two cos are bleating about this while having built their empires on IP theft is just insane. They act like people don’t see it and then wonder why there might be any resentment towards AI companies. I am pro AI but there has long been a cultural problem with mercenary attitudes in the big data/ML and now AI world of which this is just the latest most extreme manifestation.
- seydor 3mo agoThis is so boring, it's like the tarriffs on chinese EVs.
- abroszka33 3mo agoThere is nothing these big tech companies hate more than competition. It took Google, Apple and M$ long long time to establish their monopolies. OpenAI and Anthropic are trying to speed run it.
- an0malous 3mo ago“competition is for losers” — Peter Thiel
- JSR_FDED 3mo agoHe’s just the gift that keeps on giving, isn’t he?
- sodapopcan 3mo ago> nothing these big tech companies hate more than competition Their users? (Not to be confused with their users' money)
- pferde 3mo agoNo, they do not feel about their users one way or another. As soon as they have their monopoly, they no longer need to.
- llelouch 3mo agoAnthropic wanted regulation before and after taking the lead. They have always been consistent.
- stego-tech 3mo agoAnd to think I got warned in another post that I need to be nicer/more professional in discussing this topic. Yeah. Nah. Bringing out the same drum I’ve been banging for years now, these companies have never actually cared about ensuring safe AI, regulation, or ensuring it benefits all humanity. It has always, always, been about control and their profit margins. Their actions have never reflected any sort of positive, shared human benefit since OpenAI released ChatGPT, and they’ll never actually provide said shared benefit when it comes down to benefitting everyone versus benefitting themselves. The technology is built off wholesale theft of protected works without compensation; at least China gives most of those models back, for free, in the form of open-weights. It’s the Princess Bride meme but for AI: “you’re trying to take what I’ve rightfully stolen!” I’m tired of having to put on some sort of mask of decency and professionalism to discuss a topic whose counterparty gets to wallow in toxic waste without recourse, and these sorts of stories only reinforce that despite being a glib jerk about it, I’m still on the high road, here. More folks should join us in open mockery of hypocritical whinging from technological robber barons.
- GiorgioG 3mo agoAnyone who thinks these companies ever cared about any of that is naive.
- Davidzheng 3mo agoThen I am naive, but I think they cared before they got powerful and chatgpt release.
- jerrythegerbil 3mo agoThis AI generated article about closed-weights model providers collaborating for additional scrutiny of open weights models, where the article itself has the tell-tale structure of being written by Claude Opus, which is aware it is a closed-weight model. Thank goodness no one is taking any of this seriously, because it could never be anything more than a machine generated hatchet job. A faster and better educated understanding of the subject matter could be achieved by standing in front of a wood chipper and dropping a brick in it to see what happens. “Yes, there were results! But why? Why to literally every variable involved?”
- mlok 3mo agoOpenAI vs. Open AIs I knew this would happen someday.
- hmokiguess 3mo agoThat's what you get living on borrowed time. The entire thing started off with the wrong foot, using copyrighted and licensed work without attribution followed by a nonsensical illusion of "fair play" because you wanted to win. This is just one way where the moat will fall, the next wave will be when consumer and local inference catches up.
- zkmon 3mo agoWe might see people rushing to download the Chinese models expecting a ban, like they mobbed stores for tissue paper a few years ago.
- plagiarist 3mo agoTwo companies stole trillions of tokens worth of IP from Americans so of course the US government will step in and protect "their IP" from competitors
- baxtr 3mo agoHow ironic that OpenAI is fighting Open AI.
- fedeb95 3mo agoIt is open, but they open it for you.
- tsoukase 3mo agoNaming plays top role in a corp's success. OpenAI chose terrible ones: a cheating, barely legal for the company and a scientific abbreviation for their popular product. I predict market fate will give them a lesson by pushing them to failure.
- jacobgold 3mo agoHumanity discovered a technique for compressing the world's information into a few files that fit on a USB drive. It's just insane that some people thought they'd get to be the only ones who get to possess them.
- solenoid0937 3mo agoThis is such a naive take. What happens when "those files on a USB drive" turn into a zero day button that can harm millions of people? What happens when they help authoritarian dictatorships build nuclear weapons? What happens when they teach average people the steps needed to make a bioweapon at home? Every society restricts dangerous capabilities at the end of the day, because most people realize there is a crossover point between the danger of the capability and it being available to everyone.
- mring33621 3mo agoSome very bad people already have a "button that can harm millions of people". Some more very bad people are building them. This democratizes that ability. Might be good. Might be bad. Might be both. Fuck you for thinking you know better than everyone else.
- brazukadev 3mo agoThank you so much for saying what I'd like to without getting flagged.
- solenoid0937 3mo agoThis sort of thinking is what gets us into a world where journalists get bonesawed because some technolibertarians thought technology should be free. You can give tools to defenders and not attackers. This is something that is possible to do.
- bigyabai 3mo ago> This sort of thinking is what gets us into a world where journalists get bonesawed Journalists get bonesawed because of an abuse of the concentration of power, which is what you're directly advocating for.
- q8zd3 3mo agoThose people really believe in the idea of a "technological republic", heh.
- manoDev 3mo agoIt's inevitable. The value proposition of the software isn't large enough to justify (by itself) the valuation. Not to mention it's trained on lots of public or scraped data. It's a gold rush, and the only guy getting rich will be the one selling the shovel (nvidia + cloud in this case).
- Ekaros 3mo agoAnd I would not be so sure about cloud... It is like building massive brothel and then the rush simply going away and you still having loan to pay.
- manoDev 3mo agoThere's money now to _build_ these massive data centers. If there is long-term money to operate, we'll see. It might mean we'll get cheaper cloud compute in the future, but I'm also positive on the market's ability to absorb the excess capacity quickly. It's Jervon's paradox.
- Ekaros 3mo agoI am less exuberant on market willing to pay the rates that are need to cover the loan servicing costs of these investments. Numbers look really suspicious because they are so significant compared to economy in general.
- jake-coworker 3mo agoRegulation won't beat engineering here. China will continue to release open weight models that are impossible to ban without unprecedented surveillance in Western countries. AI labs need to innovate if they want to win. Open models are capitalism. Ideally Western companies should get more efficient, but if we can't then we should be doing the opposite of regulation, and subsidizing western models.
- mosura 3mo agoGiven all the models were effectively subsidized by being granted free access to copyrighted data for training on it only makes sense for the resulting weights to be free.
- jillesvangurp 3mo agoThere's a baby and bathwater situation here. If the US actually starts entertaining protectionism here, it might push most of the rest of the world (including places like the EU, India, South America, etc.) away from Openai and Anthropic towards other models not controlled by the US (which is mostly models made in China currently). OpenAI and Anthropic kind of need that revenue to justify their current valuations. The US market by itself is too small for that. And if that money dries up, it's going to be much harder for them to maintain their technical head start. The US starting to impose all sorts of restrictions here would not be helpful.
- skeledrew 3mo agoMore and more I'm getting the feeling that I should drop my Claude account and fully move to Chinese providers. This is sickening, especially with every mention being about "the US evaluating" aka controlling. Meanwhile us in the rest of the world can only look on and hope cracks remain for us to benefit.
- arthiarumugam18 3mo ago[flagged]
- oefrha 3mo ago> Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has argued that open-weight models are harder to keep safe because, once their weights are released, developers lose the ability to revoke access, update safety guardrails or prevent misuse. Yes, I totally love the fact that when using the closed source models that I pay for, once released, they can still shut me out or silently poison the results based on IP address, timezone, hostname, keywords or just the general vibes, etc. at any time (all of which already proved to have happend or even admitted to / bragged about). /s
- epolanski 3mo agoI don't think it's ever a good idea to change the rules of the game in order to stay competitive. In recent years, with US further turning their back from globalization into America first protectionism, the rest of the world is getting increasingly tired and slowly de risking out of US products and tech. European companies are either suffering us levies, or us interference with whom they can conduct business with, or consistently risking that their service and cloud providers can become liabilities over night. EU is also strongly pushing for US alternatives in payments, telecoms, space, etc. And I didn't even mention politics yet. US is still enjoying an apex position, but it may overestimate its gripe and underestimate resentments (Greenland threats have been a point of no return). The actions of US looks like those of a decaying empire. What plays in US hands is that its biggest "allies" are mature democracies, and mature democracies really procrastinate any painful change unless they have to confront it, thus it may keep getting away with this for very long.
- m_ke 3mo agoI wonder what they'll do when there are open european and american models that lap them. Will we see "Open"AI claim open ai is a threat to humanity?
- foco_tubi 3mo agoHow can distillation be considered IP theft, when IP theft is the defacto method in how the closed-weight models were trained?
- fedeb95 3mo agobecause on one hand you have many citizens that hardly can organize themselves and with few resources, on the other a big company funded by other big companies. The law isn't the same for everyone.
- throwaway836123 3mo agoMy bet: Thanks to China, compute gets cheaper, models get better, both economically and qualitatively, and AI becomes increasingly commoditized rather than controlled by a select few. If I wager on anything else, it won’t matter, because it would mean living in a dystopian hell where any bet is meaningless.
- andy99 3mo agoI’m in a bubble so I may not see the big picture, but I feel like these guys are completely destroying any kind of credibility they had. Anthropic especially has this arrogant, “we’re smarter than you”, communication style, and acts like they’re serving some higher purpose (to the point of absurdity in some cases like “model welfare”) - I think part of all this might be the EA roots but I’m not sure. But then they get a little competition and suddenly they’re a little tattle-tale running to the government looking to artificially preserve their advantage. I’ve seen nobody who doesn’t see the naked self interest. There’s no mission, not higher purpose, not even competitive spirit, just some people that were on top and can’t handle the idea that they weren’t as special as they thought. It’s going to bite them in the long run, we’ll probably get some politically motivated legislation, but the cats out of the bag, they’ve lost all credibility and don’t even have a uniquely competitive model anymore, they’ll end up as just another also-ran.
- StevenWaterman 3mo ago> model welfare I shouldn't get in arguments about this stuff online, but have you actually sat down and thought about this in-depth? It's pretty normal to have a gut reaction that this is insane, but it's worth thinking about. If we replaced every neuron in your brain, one by one, with a silicon equivalent, would you stop being conscious? At what point? Would you be able to tell? If yes, what about if we took those silicon neurons and instead simulated them, IE perfectly simulated an entire human brain, neuron-for-neuron, would that be conscious? If yes, where is the line at which code starts being conscious? Can you categorically say that existing LLMs are on one side or the other? Would scaling up or down change that? There are robust philosophical positions on all sides of this argument.
- georgeecollins 3mo ago>> If we replaced every neuron in your brain, one by one, with a silicon equivalent, would you stop being conscious? If we put your brain in a jar, would you be a person? Would you have normal consciousness? Honestly I don't know and I am not the person to ask. But the brain is just a computer metaphor has flaws, particularly when you take account how poorly the brain is understood.
- f8ght 3mo agoidk if its competition?? if tech evolution from ability to distill from libgen to ability to distill from another closed source model means the closed weights models collapse, maybe claude/ openai can still evolve using ability to train further with chat logs from their users...but i think if someone makes algo that can fine tune open model on their own business logic/codebase/internal processes that is what most companies and customers want, they dont need or use 90% of the weights anyway only those that are relevant to their business processes,,then company will pay for optimized server hardware still but on their own weights if that is where they can get good tps. its always good if u own ur own weights and can fine tune but that is priveledge rn limited to large corporations not small business
- WarmWash 3mo agoIf the US government was bankrolling OAI and Anthropic, and those models were free, would the situation be better?
- simonw 3mo agoIs the headline here ("OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line") an editorialized version of the original "OpenAI and Anthropic unite against China's open models" or did Axios change theirs?
- My_Name 3mo agoAh, the ever present American Exceptionalism. China really does not care what happens within the borders of the US, at least as far as stopping them developing their own models. Make laws, make policy, ban them from US markets. It won't stop China doing whatever the hell they want. Like SpaceX developed reusable rockets and China thought "That's a good idea" and now they have their own reusable rockets. They will do that with AI too, and fast. Having your head in the sand just exposes your rear end, and you've removed your ability to see the predator coming...
- Yousef9 3mo ago[dead]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- iamleppert 3mo agoThey can try to do whatever they want to do. They can ban Huggingface. It just means we will get our models from torrents, or have someone from China ship us an SD card with the weights on it. The only practical open source models, that can be fine tuned and are of sufficient quality are all Chinese. The only thing that has been released by labs are yesterday's tech. And that's exactly how they want it. They don't care about open source, don't care about the community. It's just another funnel for them to capture customers into their closed tech, which is where the actual serious high quality models are.
- Tenoke 3mo agoI am very pro open source models - I use them every single day.. But we obviously don't want everyone to have capabilities like and beyond what caused the huggingface incident in every domain, so it's not like it all comes from bottom line cynicism.
- el_io 3mo agoThen you're not very pro open source models.
- solenoid0937 3mo ago"I'm pro self defense but don't want everyone to have an ICBM." "Then you're not pro self defense!"
- brazukadev 3mo agoyou are not pro self defense if you want just a few to have ICBM.
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 3mo ago>ut we obviously don't want everyone to have capabilities like and beyond what caused the huggingface incident in every domain Why not? These tools are also very useful for defense, you just need to apply them. Read the HuggingFace postmortem, they had to use an open model because all others they tried refused to do any work.
- Tenoke 3mo agoBecause sadly, as much as I wish it wasn't the case, offense is easier, more impactful than defense.
- lolc 3mo agoYou can say you don't want the bad guys to get the capability until and after the reality hits you. But this arrogant hope stands in the way of developing an effective response. The handlers of closed models would like you to be dependent on them for protection, this much is clear.
- fedeb95 3mo agoThey are basically trying to pursue a model copyright. That's funny, because they made their models exactly because of open stuff on the web. But they will loose this battle. There is no way to technically avoid open models to be created, so they will be created.
- JSR_FDED 3mo agoThey saw the threat a long time ago, but then it was in their interest to not have pesky regulations get in the way of world domination. Now they’re being outcompeted and so we should suddenly have regulations. Time to put your big boy pants on and compete.
- hathym 3mo ago[dead]
- prodigycorp 3mo agoThe comments on this article are terrible. I can't believe it's gotten this toxic around here.
- solenoid0937 3mo ago[flagged]
- prodigycorp 3mo agoIt also doesn't seem to know what it wants. When Trump blocks Fable "there needs to be proper legislation, not an authoritarian controlling this". When an article discusses the legislative process "F' these companies!".
- timmytokyo 3mo agoConsider that HN is not a single person with a single point of view.
- solenoid0937 3mo agoCould have fooled me.
- bigyabai 3mo agoThe implications of the article are terrible. You're on a website where 99% of entrepreneurs owe their livelihoods to Open Source; put 2 and 2 together. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. Sid Meier
- palmotea 3mo agoThere is no greater moral priority than making Sam Altman and Dario Amodei into trillionaires. No greater. We all may die, or be pushed into poverty, but our sacrifice will be worth it to them.
- senordevnyc 3mo agoThis makes zero sense, given that Sama intentionally turned down any equity in OpenAI.
- paxys 3mo agoThere’s a broader issue here that goes beyond OpenAI and Anthropic. In the last couple of years US economic growth has been driven almost entirely by AI and data center spending. It may not be too outlandish to claim that we are in a recession right now but it is hidden by the AI bubble and all the underlying circular financing. So it isn’t just the two companies and their investors that have a vested interest in keeping the music playing, it’s the entire US government. No surprises then that government officials are now openly accusing Chinese companies of cheating. Sanctions and tariffs are probably going to follow.
- maxloh 3mo agoIt is ridiculous that OpenAI is a non-profit and Anthropic is a PBC, yet both actively resist open access to AI. This hinders human progress rather than serving it.
- solenoid0937 3mo ago"Openness" is not inherently a good thing, this is a naive techno libertarian mindset. You don't hand every random script kiddie a zero day button. When models get better, you don't hand them an AGI that can help them make bioweapons or whatever. When it comes to intelligence, there is a limit to openness that any sane non-tech-libertarian would agree on.
- myaccountonhn 3mo agoWhy should some unelected US-based technocrats with a terrible track record get to decide for us?
- solenoid0937 3mo agoAre we pretending the HN crowd does not echo the view of "US-based technocrats?" This is a distilled (ha) echo chamber of SV VC's views, who are coincidentally pushing the same narrative.
- bigyabai 3mo agoYes, because starry-eyed entrepreneurs, C-suites and engineers famously lack the calculated sociopathy that enables VCs and CEOs to be so successful. The average Palantir employee is not reading Alex Karp's press junkets and going "Wow! Couldn't have said it better myself." Most of them are probably closing the news app to check the stock market as their first reaction. You conflate these two people to your own peril.
- llelouch 3mo agoAt least for nathropic they don't care if it's open or closed. They just want regulation for something of certain capabilites. Demis hassabis wants this as well. I don't get whats the issue. Sometimes it feels like people are fighting a strawman.
- economistbob 3mo ago[flagged]
- ryandrake 3mo agoWow, talk about a comment that starts out solid, with good points, and making a lot of sense, and ends up in an insane asylum!
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- ralusek 3mo ago> They want you to rent their compute instead of running it on your own hardware I don't think this is the main thing. I think the real risk open weights AI poses to them is that it allows us to get inference from providers that only care about making profits on inference. What OpenAI/Anthropic want is to be able to jack up inference prices once everyone is dependent. Open weights keeps them honest.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- tomhow 3mo agoWe've banned this account.
- haihaoxu 3mo ago[dead]
- amazingamazing 3mo agoI always laugh when people defend the big AI labs and post archive.is links. Techies love copyright and ToS violations until they are targeted.
- blackoil 3mo agoAs someone outside both USA and China. I think it is time to increase my spending on Chinese infra/services. It is imperative to have alternatives to US oligopolies else will be at whims of these techbros and govt elected by money and relgious fanaticism. So, bye-bye Claude; hello Kimi.
- solenoid0937 3mo agoAs usual, HN and the media think they understand AI safety and the implications of the race to RSI better than the people that have worked on this their whole lives.
- bigyabai 3mo agoThe people that work on computational linguistics their whole lives are often theory-obsessed morons. Noam Chomsky was widely discredited even before we knew he was friends with Epstein. If you think you can make a better case than Chomsky did, be my guest. Until then, those "researchers" will be rightfully mocked even by the scientific community: https://xkcd.com/114/ https://xkcd.com/114/
- bethekidyouwant 3mo agoThis article doesn’t even say anything.
- ben8bit 3mo agoMore and more these companies sound like they want to protect market share, instead of lose it to foreign models. I believe the cat's already out of the bag on this one. Regulatory capture and more export control will indeed push more people to Chinese models that are good enough right now. I'm not sure they actually realize that.
- ExoticPearTree 3mo agoSo Anthropic/OpenAI is the new Microsoft and Open Weight models are the new Linux and its cancer? https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Steve-Ballmer-call-Linux-a-cancer https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Steve-Ballmer-call-Linux-a-can... I guess it hurts the big AI companies knowing that AI can be way cheaper than what they sell.
- ls_stats 3mo agoSo, they are just going to ban chinese models, close their eyes and pretend that both Anthropic and OpenAI are worth $1T?
- positron26 3mo agoBill Gureley's talk on regulation comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9cO3-MLHOM&t=1447s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9cO3-MLHOM&t=1447s The reason barking at open source will only get the dog thrown into the river is because there is a whole lot more cumulative power distributed among companies and consumers who don't want two incumbents to dictate which kinds of alternatives can exist. Note that those rushing to the "all corpos evil" talking points will turn around and advocate delegating these decisions to "the government." This is the same government that they also claim is bought by the corporations. It's also the same government that will enforce the regulatory capture on behalf of the yucky corporation against the broad, diverse interests. Thinking big vs small while embracing the biggest of the big is some kind of inconsistency that people need to deal with by looking in the mirror and finding some awareness. Nuance. If your problem model is wrong, so is every solution you propose except if your wrong model may get lucky from time to time. Not every broken model is a broken clock. Some broken models cannot admit the right answer ever. The real dynamic on display here is broad, correlated mass of overlapping interests, big and small. The big pile of people and entities that don't want to be governed by OpenAI and Anthropic can push harder and win the tug of war. You don't have to like your temporary allies all the time, but at least know who they are and when you are aligned.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- LurkandComment 3mo ago1) This is going to be like Electric cars. You see how far ahead China is there for commercial viability for a wider consumer base 2) There are many reasons why Anthropic and Open Ai will collapse aside from this. 3) Wait until you have non-China models that are good enough. Hint: they already exist. Microsoft partnering with Mistral is a big red flag for OpenAI and Anthropic.
- pandinus 3mo agoNational pride aside, we must decide if competition is good or is it bad. In the west we've been conditioned that competition is good and expect consequences and tradeoffs. In this case we're seeing incumbents trying to lobby government to secure their market share. People rightfully question if these business models were ever feasible or sustainable to begin with. But isn't that the risk they took? We can certainly recognize that being displaced before realizing profit from your work is like a kick in the pants, but isn't that always supposed to be a possible outcome? I realize that is part of why we have intellectual property rights to reward innovators - but that isn't a universal concept in this global economy. Which, some might argue, may be the point on the global stage. It is an ideological competition as well.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago“This is a point that bears repeating: because U.S. open weight model makers must follow the frontier labs’ terms of service, they (1) are worse than Chinese alternatives and (2) end up distilling the distillation, just with a detour through Chinese labs. Wouldn’t it be better if western open weight model makers could go to the source? … The U.S. should pass a law that (1) makes explicit that collecting data for training models is fair use, and (2) bars terms of service that forbid distillation, for U.S. companies at a minimum. Stopping distillation — which is literally just querying the API — is nearly impossible; the U.S. should go the other way and lean into a new copyright policy that both indemnifies the labs and also guarantees that what they learned fuels further innovation for everyone else” [1]. [1] https://stratechery.com/2026/whos-afraid-of-chinese-models/ https://stratechery.com/2026/whos-afraid-of-chinese-models/
- jimnotgym 3mo agoI'm actually having a party when they both go bust. Maybe a festival? Imagine having the brass neck to go and lobby for a rent-seeking monopoly?
- TedDallas 3mo agoCorporations are already pulling back from using expensive SotA closed models. The buffet is open weight. Just look at Databricks as an endpoint provider for both open weight and closed LLMs. Companies will utilize what is cheaper and does the job. We all know the market pressure is real and present. What has become truly apparent is that when (not if) mythos class open weight models get released, if cybersecurity folks and developers have no access to use them to help harden and guard infrastructure, it leaves the gates wide open to attach vectors which will not be defensible. This is the real danger that the vast majority of corporate entities should be caring about. Shutting down open models is setting up for serious security concerns. The OpenAI/Huggingface debacle is patient-zero. Huggingface used GLM 5.2 to help mitigate and were unable to use more capable closed sota models for the analysis due to guardrails. It is a foot gun of the highest order. We should all be concerned. I feel like Captain Obvious saying this.
- _tomasz 3mo agoThe irony of creating distilled models by training against closed-source models, which were themselves trained on copyrighted work without permission arguing it was fair use.
- nunez 3mo agoTo their mutual detriment. If anything, this proves how unsustainable of a business LLMs are in their current form. This is a ultra speed run of what Red Hat and SuSE upending Windows in the 90s/00s. LLMs are incredible and extremely useful, but they never should have been a for-profit venture. At least not at first. They should have originated from universities (who would have had the capital to fund model development and do so ethically in this universe), and LLMs should have been much, much smaller in scope (like autocorrect in word processors or autocomplete in IDEs). Instead, we (well, OpenAI mostly) opted to burn the Amazon to extract profit from the wood, our planet's future be damned. Between this, transferring billions from EV R&D, eliminating the EV tax credit and targetting research universities, I can't help but think that Krebs was right. So MANY of the policy decisions being made by the US are inexplicable UNLESS you assume that a rootkit has infected the government.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- xvector 3mo agoAm I the only one that finds the "laissez faire" attitude of the tech crowd insufferable? There is this chronic refusal to believe that new technologies can cause harm. My team works on testing risks from both companies' leading models and I feel pretty confident saying that uncensored next gen models becoming "open" would be a net negative for society. I don't understand why no narrative regarding the risks of technology can land with the tech crowd until it's too late (hello, social media!)
- bigyabai 3mo ago> I feel pretty confident saying that uncensored next gen models becoming "open" would be a net negative for society. Explain it, please. I'm in the tech crowd, and I find your inability to explain the danger insufferable and infantilizing. I get a real laugh out of people that hand-wring without being able to articulate what the dangers actually are. I'm not emotionally inclined to identify with your hysteria, and I'm not mentally inclined to respect your authority without seeing the logic you use to derive this conclusion. So you're directly contributing to the attitude that annoys you by demanding respect from a position of emotional dejection rather than substance and authority on the subject. Remember GPT-3? Yeah, it was "too dangerous" and could have made bio-weapons or super-nukes or whatever. At least, in theory it could, according to the diligent, world-class "researchers" at OpenAI. Oh, and when GPT-4 came out with the ominous "sparks of AGI" that would be used for precious little besides MCP servers and agentic tool calling. Still no AI-nuke being made yet. GLM 5.2 can whistle Daisy into a payphone and launch ICBMs! Fable is going to hack the banks!!! We get access for a month, and society is fine. How often this "research" insults the intelligence of ordinary people, let alone the tech crowd at large. You must expect us all to have the memory of a goldfish, huh? You're Chicken Little. You're the boy crying wolf. You want us to actually see the danger? Take us to it and make it personal, rub our noses in it. Your disappointment is your own fault.
- 1029384756xyz 3mo ago[dead]
- mring33621 3mo ago*ATTENTION* This is a Big Green Flag for open-weight AI models.
- zkmon 3mo agoNever thought China can force these two companies to run for the cover.
- ex1fm3ta 3mo agoOn today's episode of "AI Frontier Labs running scams": Now that the narrative of "too dangerous to be released" is not longer working since Chinese gave it all away, they have to come up with another one. You had the first glimpse this week: "Chinese frontier labs distilled our models ..." => so it should be illegal to use them in America since it's similar to illegal copy.
- imightbebatman 3mo agoIn my opinion this is worth revolting about. It is critically important to the future of your progeny, that 1-2 companies are not able to corner the AI landscape. Open-source and open-weight or we throw ourselves on the machine worthy.
- dk970 3mo ago[flagged]
- dunnock 3mo agoFrontier labs used open information paying nothing and disregarding licenses to train their models and are now trying to convince that distillation is the evil. Double standard at least.