4 ms·
This is a silly argument. Like yes, obviously it’s of less U.S. concern if one American is robbing another versus a foreign interest. We can deal with one whene
by JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
This is a silly argument. Like yes, obviously it’s of less U.S. concern if one American is robbing another versus a foreign interest. We can deal with one whenever while the other creates constraints.
The better arguments are the ones made in the article. Open weights increase competition and thus AI availability in the U.S. economy.
- sscaryterry 3mo agoObviously stealing is bad, doesn't matter who you steal from. In this case, its a simple case of no honour amongst thieves.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago> its a simple case of no honour amongst thieves Which is why making an honour-based argument to said thieves is silly.
- randbyte 3mo agoBlatantly lack of principles.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo agoSure. The American electorate isn’t really principled right now. If the best argument we can surface is this tripe, we’ll lose access.
- wongarsu 3mo agoIt's not like those American companies were only stealing form Americans. Maybe you could argue about utility, but morally I don't see any ground to stand on And the utility argument is also very shaky. The proposed punishment for foreign interests stealing "US data" is that other Americans now aren't allowed to benefit from that, while the rest of the world can
- JumpCrisscross 3mo agoThere isn’t an argument for banning Chinese or open-weight models. I’m just saying OP’s moralistic outrage take is about the weakest one you can come up with against it.
- throwfaraway4 3mo agoWhether or not it’s robbery is irrelevant. It’s the proposed remedy that is the problem
- JumpCrisscross 3mo agoSure. Great. OP’s argument focuses on the outrage. That’s focusing on the first bit.
- myrmidon 3mo agoThis is not robbing. Undesired distillation is a ToS violation, at best. There is not even jurisdiction over Chinese companies, because they don't sell their LLM subscribtions, unlike US companies, and those comitted much more severe violations in getting their training material than a ToS violation or two (Anthropic already found guilty). edit: I don't see this as legal argument against the ban, more like a justification for why basically no moral person is gonna side with OpenAI and Anthropic on this. US gov can try and ban as many weights as they want, I expect that to be similarly effective as banning numbers was in the past (i.e. not).
- JumpCrisscross 3mo agoNone of it is robbing because there is no violence, but sure. The point is being confused why an external threat is treated differently from internal ones is a self goal in a debate where there are far better arguments for not banning these models.
- nickthegreek 3mo ago> There is not even jurisdiction over Chinese companies, because they don't sell their LLM subscribtions, unlike US companies, and those comitted much more severe violations in getting their training material than a ToS violation or two (Anthropic already found guilty). This is false. They do sell LLM subscriptions. Many also release _most_ of their models as open weights.