15 ms·

Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

• 7bit 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  • bigbadfeline 2mo ago
    It's not worthless, you don't have to agree with P on everything, or make it personal - it works as strictly business - only where and when appropriate.
  • dang 2mo ago
    Ok, but please don't fulminate or post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• credit_guy 2mo ago
  If you see the long 3rd paragraph twice, know that you are not alone.
• satvikpendem 2mo ago
  The issue is not open weights as a whole, indeed Hegseth himself said they are important for America (if American made, presumably); the issue is Chinese models, whether open or not, and that's what's looking to be banned, and nothing in this article suggests otherwise.
  • calebkaiser 2mo ago
    The conversation going on in the industry is a bit broader than that. OpenAI's head of strategic futures just said last week that open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier. You'll notice OpenAI does not appear as a signatory here despite their relationship with Microsoft.
    • satvikpendem 2mo ago
      Well of course OpenAI and Anthropic say those sorts of things, it's what they've always said, particularly Anthropic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the position of the US government. In other words the government seems to be listening to some but not all of the lobbying done by the big two.
      • calebkaiser 2mo ago
        The guy who said those things just joined OpenAI in the last month. He was previously a senior policy advisor, specifically on AI, to the current administration in the White House. I don't know that the US government has a unified position on open source AI. But it's not like this isn't a discussion happening among policymakers.
    • derektank 2mo ago
      >open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier Ungovernable makes intuitive sense, but I don’t understand how open weight models could be decelerationist or slow the development of the frontier. Was there an argument for those positions?
      • newpavlov 2mo ago
        Open weight models challenge the "winner takes all" hypothesis, which motivates the astronomical valuations and acts as a justification for trains of cash dumped into AI development. In other words, if AI models become a commodity, the "AI leaders" will not be able to burn the cash like they do today, thus resulting in a "slower" (one could say instead "more sustainable") development of AI models.
• some_furry 2mo ago
  I don't personally have a horse in this race, but if you want to accurately predict the next step: Start with the outcome you believe will be the most in line with the spirit and traditions of the open source community. This is precisely what won't happen. It won't necessarily be the inverse. It could be, of course, but it's also likely to be a compromise between the two. For a topical example: The companies doing "AI" layoffs aren't doing so out of a sense of having failed their staff that helped carry them so far. Often, these announcements come on the heels of record-breaking profits. They're doing it out of contempt for workers. See https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/cory-doctorow-reverse-centaurs-alt-view/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/cory-doctoro... for Doctorow's take on centaurs vs. reverse centaurs. Broadly speaking: C-suite business leadership wants reverse centaurs. Workers want centaurs. Unless you have a union (or some other collective bargaining power structure that I'm not aware of), the C-suite calls the shots. The same can be said of the current administration. They don't give a fuck what most of us want on any given issue. They're captured by an aggressive ideology. Their only incentive is to be able to spin their decision to make themselves look good; to posture as "strong" leadership.
  • forshaper 2mo ago
    Ideology? I think this administration is the least captured by ideology in the last few decades. It's mostly brazen self-interest, for both entertainment & profit.
    • some_furry 2mo ago
      It's a mix of grifts, gaffes, and Project 2025.
  • chasd00 2mo ago
    > Start with the outcome you believe will be the most in line with the spirit and traditions of the open source community there's nothing open source about an open weight model. It's more like the binary blobs Linux fought so hard against. If you can't compile, or in this case train, from source then you're missing the "source" part of open source.
• Linserin 2mo ago
  Just saw on Microsoft https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/topics/open-weight/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/top...
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  • andai 2mo ago
    [dead]
  • mmusc 2mo ago
    Makes sense Microsoft is placing it self as a model host and os providing open weight models for much cheaper on their infra already. No wonder openai and anthropic are terrified
    • thewebguyd 2mo ago
      Makes sense for Microsoft. Copilot is already capable of being model agnostic (both GH Copilot, obviously, and M365 as well). They're an enterprise software & services company, they want to sell integrated AI tooling in their stack, powered by whatever models their customers want rather than any specific model. Models are quickly becoming a dumb pipe, like an ISP. Just a commodity. The labs should rightfully be terrified, eventually the value isn't going to come from the model itself but the tools & integrations built on top. Non-tech businesses and non-tech employees don't want to buy API access to a model, they want to buy off the shelf software with its capabilities packaged up into a pretty, easy to use GUI.
      • Panoramix 2mo ago
        I don't know about that, a lot of those bloated enterprise solutions are becoming obsolete fast, and integrations becoming a moot point as these models advance.
• gaigalas 2mo ago
  > Open source did more than lower the cost of software; it created a shared foundation of knowledge on which generations of American engineers and entrepreneurs built their institutional sovereignty Hey nvidia, what about making your full set of linux drivers open source? I mean, I do agree that being open is important but you're hijacking the narrative here, and I suspect being open have nothing to do with any of this.
  • chasd00 2mo ago
    i'm glad someone else sees this too. There's nothing open source about an open-weight model. I feel like they're just trying to associate themselves with open source and the positive impacts it has had on software technolgoy.
• christina97 2mo ago
  I wonder what is happening behind closed doors for these companies to be issuing such a joint letter.
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  • paxys 2mo ago
    Different companies have different motivations. I'm sure some are genuine, but a lot of them simply lost the race (to OpenAI/Anthropic/Google) and know they can't compete anymore, so are shifting strategies. How many times has Microsoft done exactly this in the past?
    • cyanydeez 2mo ago
      looking at both openai and anthropic; they are winning something, but a sober look at their finances will make you silently mouth "but what did they win".
      • deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      • infamouscow 2mo ago
        They want to be the successor to Enron.
      • manincharge 2mo ago
        Next year's archeologists will dig out their fossilized remnants.
        • cyanydeez 2mo ago
          pretty optimistic to think there'll befunded expeditions.
  • fidotron 2mo ago
• sweetheart 2mo ago
  It makes a ton of sense to see this sort of joint effort being made by these enormous companies, but man, there's some part of me that can't help but feel grossed out knowing the best way to get the US to make the right choice is to have a handful of elite business people say it'd be bad for them.
  • voidhorse 2mo ago
    Yeah, this letter is just proof of (the by now long standing fact) of corporate power/corporate capture of American governance. Tons of popular protests against big AI? Makes no difference. Joint corporate letter about big AI? Possibly the government will do something.
    • ryandrake 2mo ago
      People unfortunately keep voting for “corporate power” politicians, so corporations continue to be in charge.
    • SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
      If you support the ideas described in Nvidia's letter, you're going against popular opinion. Most Americans do not want to "make advanced AI more accessible, adaptable, and widely available". Indeed, many areas of the country including the entire state of New York have enacted datacenter moratoriums, responding to the widespread public concern that we can't have too much AI or it'll drink all our water.
      • hangrybear666 2mo ago
        Yeah hard to imagine why people would object to rising electricity and gas bills, negative environmental impact on their area for the privilege of ultimately losing their job.
        • SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
          It's easy to imagine! What I find hard to imagine is someone who opposes the construction of AI datacenters while also having detailed opinions about open weights and identifying "American AI Leadership" as a laudable goal. We're not talking about local AI here, competitive open-weight models can't be run effectively on consumer hardware.
• ChrisArchitect 2mo ago
  Some more discussion on NVIDIA crosspost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49035751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49035751
• pogue 2mo ago
  Ok, great, so Microsoft believes in open weight models. So... uhh, why not release a few?
  • woodson 2mo ago
    They did. Check out the Phi models (e.g., https://huggingface.co/microsoft/phi-4 https://huggingface.co/microsoft/phi-4).
    • pogue 2mo ago
      Great, how about some frontier models like China seems to be doing on a weekly basis at this point. Give us a CoPilot variant that's open source & open weights.
      • aesthesia 2mo ago
        They could start by releasing the MAI-1 models they announced recently. https://microsoft.ai/models/ https://microsoft.ai/models/
• paxys 2mo ago
  I agree with the message, but I'm not going to accept it from this particular crowd. Microsoft, NVIDIA, Meta, Palantir, IBM...They have all been actively hostile to open source for decades, and have a history of embracing it only when convenient and profitable. Microsoft benefited from its close partnership with OpenAI for years right up until it went sour. Where was this enthusiasm for open weights then? Meta was developing open models and then abandoned that effort in search for profits. Muse Spark is now fully closed. All these companies have the resouces to train and release frontier open weights models today, but choose not to. So spare me the marketing and virtue signaling.
  • ryandrake 2mo ago
    I’ll never forgive Microsoft for their hostile actions against open source and open standards in the 90s. I’ll never believe any endorsement from them of open-anything.
  • Arubis 2mo ago
    Yeah, the endorsement logos at the bottom are majority bad actors with regards to openness in code. Many are bad actors with regards to openness in _society_.
  • balls187 2mo ago
    Yeah, never ask a fox to count your chickens.
• Catloafdev 2mo ago
  Reassuring to see this backed by major players. This is the correct stance, hopefully this is the stance that prevails.
• austin-schick 2mo ago
  I'm finding the list of signatories on this letter really interesting and somewhat confusing, looking purely through the lens of economic interest. It makes sense to see Meta, the startups, and the VC firms on this list. And it makes sense to see OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google all missing. Microsoft is somewhat unexpected to me. I don't think of them as having a focus on open weight models (no more than Google), and they have a large stake in OpenAI. Maybe they're looking at this from the angle of Azure providing compute. But then why is Amazon missing, when it has AWS? And of course, we don't see DeepSeek, Moonshot, or Z.ai on here. The letter is about American technological leadership after all. But then we _do_ see the French company Mistral! Mistral who released [a playbook](https://europe.mistral.ai/ https://europe.mistral.ai/) for Europe becoming a self-reliant AI powerhouse. I assume all of this is in the context of influencing the Trump administration's thinking on Chinese open weights models. But the letter is really about _American_ open weights models. The call to action is all about keeping the American open weights ecosystem competitive. I didn't even realize that was under threat, so I feel like I'm missing something.
  • mcast 2mo ago
    Google and Amazon both have incredibly large compute deals with frontier labs and GovCloud. They may not want to sour on that cash.
  • rubyfan 2mo ago
    My hunch is they are all seeing the problems at OpenAI and some other collateral damage on the horizon. They don’t want the US government intervening to try to save OpenAI. A little controlled burn is probably good for the industry long term.
  • verdverm 2mo ago
    It helps to understand there are multiple factions within the white house and trump admin. One faction is very hawkish towards allies and enemies, especially China. Another is the one sending ICE to invade American cities, the Christian nationalism and such. Another is very focused on wealth expansion for friends and family. There is an amount of Venn to these groups.
  • 2mo ago
• throwaway323929 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  • furyofantares 2mo ago
    I'm very confused by this comment, I don't know who you're referring to.
    • gizmodo59 2mo ago
      None of the people signed this have ever produced a frontier model at a given date (Which is to say its neither Google/OAI/Ant). The ones that sign are meta, musk (who is in the shovel selling business as well), hugging face obviously and few others Note: Just pointing out the comment intent and nothing else
      • furyofantares 2mo ago
        OK, I guess my confusion was that the effort to ban open weights models is what I would categorize as "groveling at the white house to try to stop their competition".
      • segmondy 2mo ago
        Google has produced Gemini Pro, Meta produced llama3-70B/llama3-405B and now has Muse, Musk has Grok. These are very capable models and to claim that they are not frontier is to stretch the meaning unless you want to say "#1 model" Gemini Pro at one point even if for a week, was #1 model.
        • gizmodo59 2mo ago
          I included Google along with Ant and OAI. OSS models have never been the highest performing model unless you refer to benchmaxxing.
      • deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 2mo ago
• gilfoyle_7 2mo ago
  MSFT, dell, NVIDIA. These guys will make money no matter who uses what AI since they're the hardware providers. Even though they all own stake in frontier labs, chinese open weight models will commoditize the intelligence layer.
  • Danox 2mo ago
    Too bad Microsoft couldn’t see that before they spent the money…
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• lr1970 2mo ago
  The list of companies that signed this letter is telling (including Nvidia, Meta, Microsoft). Equally telling is the list of companies that did not sign it -- including Google, Amazon.
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  • bhelkey 2mo ago
    > Equally telling is the list of companies that did not sign it -- including Google, Amazon. Could you elaborate? I don't understand your implication. Amazon in particular hosts open weight models via Amazon Bedrock (e.g. Ministral 14B 3.0, DeepSeek V3.2, ...)[1]. In case it changes the context of this comment, I am a Meta employee, all opinions are my own. [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/model-cards.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/model-c...
    • lr1970 2mo ago
      > Could you elaborate? I don't understand your implication. Amazon in particular hosts open weight models via Amazon Bedrock (e.g. Ministral 14B 3.0, DeepSeek V3.2, ...) It means Google and Amazon do not care and would not voice their opposition against the government action.
      • cognitiveinline 2mo ago
        Right, Meta and Microsoft are bullwarks of government overreach activism.
  • mlazos 2mo ago
    Google and Amazon are Anthropic investors right?
    • nojvek 2mo ago
      Yes. Microsoft is an OpenAI investor and they did sign it.
• apurvak 2mo ago
  I wonder why Apple stayed absent from signing this?
  • bigyabai 2mo ago
    Apple is allergic to industry-spanning consortiums.
    • Danox 2mo ago
      Apples allergy goes back to Motorola saying no, IBM saying no, Intel saying no, which led to buying Pa Semi, Intrinsity, and Anobit which in turn led to the birth of Apple Silicon with in house Soc’s. Waiting for the crowd means no vertical computing, no gorilla glass, multiple, ecosystems, Tandem OLED or thunderbolt five releases to a wide audience before most of the competition.
      • bigyabai 2mo ago
        Apple is a trillion-dollar business, you can't blame their participation on Motorola. They can perfectly well hold down a consortium alone, we've seen it happen before. Features like Corning Gorilla Glass, tandem OLED and "vertical computing" should have been cut in favor of a GPGPU redesign. Apple Silicon is now dead-last in the GPGPU architecture race, in the middle of a $4 trillion CUDA market. Nothing that you listed is a $4 trillion feature, Apple absolutely should have put aside their pride and helped Khronos kill CUDA.
  • cheschire 2mo ago
    I wonder if it has anything to do with Apple’s legal case against OAI.
    • Danox 2mo ago
      No, it has to do with giving OpenAI nothing at the very beginning of the AI fiasco.
  • plutomeetsyou 2mo ago
• segmondy 2mo ago
  At the end of the day, these companies that signed this letter have more cash. What they should do is bring some money together, more money than the other side, donate it and buy their way. That's the 2026 way, no one has time for all this letter and protest. How much are they willing to put on the line?
• fcq 2mo ago
  Hopefully something good comes from this... But I certainly don't see the big players caving in: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47929951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47929951> The Chinese open models are way ahead, not by how capable they are compared to frontier models, but on how they project to the world and how they improve over time.
• ma2kx 2mo ago
  It would be interesting to know how many optimizations of the Chinese models were incorporated back into Claude and Codex.
  • Frost1x 2mo ago
    To some degree even unintentionally this is all inevitable. I know this isn’t what you’re taking about, but it’s a similar line of thought. These models are consuming public free information, and they’re all also producing free public information, so they’re all pissing and drinking into same pool. If we go down the line of dead internet theory which I’m becoming more convinced of these days, the volume of information that’s not necessarily original or extracted from reality and just interpolated and extrapolated from existing information in different ways by LLMs will greatly outnumber human information coming up. In which case these models should.. start to converge on the same data I imagine, with slightly different behaviors within that. One big generative orgy feedback loop.
  • lenerdenator 2mo ago
    Let me put it this way: if they're not ripping off all that they can, their investors need to shitcan the leadership.
  • largbae 2mo ago
    I may be remembering wrong, but reasoning was first demonstrated by DeepSeek. Edit: I am indeed remembering wrong, seems o1 was first.
    • janalsncm 2mo ago
      Deepseek’s R1 paper was the first paper to describe how to do it. O1 was released before R1 came out. A month before the R1 paper came out, they released the Deepseek math paper which described their method for MoE load balancing.
  • ekidd 2mo ago
    DeepSeek has published some really good papers. Lately they're pushing really hard for dramatically cheaper serving costs.
• dang 2mo ago
  From yesterday: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49023016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49023016 - July 2026 (841 comments) Also related: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49020868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49020868 - July 2026 (330 comments) China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48979269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48979269 - July 2026 (932 comments) The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48692058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48692058 - June 2026 (250 comments) The unbearable cheapness of open weight models - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48668255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48668255 - June 2026 (186 comments)
• 0xc0c0c0 2mo ago
  I thought it would've made a lot of sense for Apple to be on this list as well.
  • bigyabai 2mo ago
    Because their long-term goal is to make AI a walled garden subscription.
  • himata4113 2mo ago
    Apple would be rather unaffected since they already signed a deal with Google/Gemini.
    • zekrioca 2mo ago
      They also run Chinese models for their china-based iPhones. So they would benefit from models being open.
    • Danox 2mo ago
      In time, what do you think is gonna happen with the Google Gemini models, I predict that in time Apple will just dump it when they’re ready… No different than dumping Intel. In similar Qualcomm is probably coming up in the near future 2027-2028.
• scronkfinkle 2mo ago
  I don't feel it's meaningful to berate the point anymore about the hypocrisy of the American labs. Now as the sentiment and effort from them to push for regulation increases so does my perception of how pathetic they are behaving. I'm not sure how else to say it other than that it's honestly just embarrassing to watch China and others run circles around us in the USA.
  • lenerdenator 2mo ago
    > I'm not sure how else to say it other than that it's honestly just embarrassing to watch China and others run circles around us in the USA. The gap is shrinking, but considering their models still lag our frontier, I wouldn't say they "run circles" around us.
    • zekrioca 2mo ago
      And what would you say, Sherlock?
• etiennebausson 2mo ago
  > The unbearable cheapness of open weight models So the closed model try to get client with their model by saying it's cheaper than employees, and then turn around to lawyer-out cheaper alternative? Truly the american dream.
  • thewebguyd 2mo ago
    And the verdict is still out on if it's going to be cheaper than employees in the long run. Maybe for companies in HCoL areas (SV/NYC), but any smaller mid-market org in a LCoL area, frontier model token spend may not end up all that cheaper when your employee salaries are $55k-$75k/year so you're mostly evaluating it as an additional force multiplier expense rather than a headcount replacer.
    • davkan 2mo ago
      Those salaries seem low for mid sized cities even no?
      • Spartan-S63 2mo ago
        I think they're generalizing beyond software engineers with what they're saying. G&A, Marketing, etc roles pay significantly less than software engineers and that $55-75k figure is realistic in lower cost of living areas. Even in Colorado, which the Denver Metro Area is HCOL, there are companies (smaller, regional, not national/global) still offering that level of salary.
        • davkan 2mo ago
          Yeah that would make more sense. Though it seems to me AI is currently better at reducing dev headcount than most other roles.
        • thewebguyd 2mo ago
          Yeah, correct, I wasn't thinking of devs specifically, more other office/administrative roles threatened by automation. Even where I live in a relatively HCOL area, any non-dev office role you can still expect to see a$65-$80k salary range, and $80k is pushing toward the top end for non tech roles.
• ck2 2mo ago
  isn't the real world destroyer going to be when China starts cranking out it's own nvidia chip clones? remember when bitcoin got its first dedicated hardware, will be like that
• vatsachak 2mo ago
  This is all a moot point because there's no way you can copyright a model because you can just randomly perturb weights and still be fine.
  • Someone1234 2mo ago
    What does copyright have to do with anything? You also cannot copyright an encryption algorithm, but the US Government banned essentially mathematics for YEARS[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
    • vatsachak 2mo ago
      Yeah copyright is kinda just like "if we say it's so then it's so"
  • BigTTYGothGF 2mo ago
    You can randomly shift every pixel in a movie by +/-1, doesn't make the original not copyrightable.
    • vatsachak 2mo ago
      I mean movies are up on YouTube slightly pitch shifted lol.
      • BigTTYGothGF 2mo ago
        That's just to avoid the detectors, it's not One Weird Trick.
        • deleted 2mo ago
          [deleted]
        • vatsachak 2mo ago
          Fair
• GodelNumbering 2mo ago
  I posted earlier on reddit that at this point, the closed source lobby wanting to ban open weights is effectively outgunned (musk also publicly supported this). The oddly reminds me of back in the day when SOPA had caused a similar stir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act), and all HN was up in arms against it.
• naveen99 2mo ago
  Would be nice to see standardized open weight classes: 12B, 24B, 48B… Who can make the best open model in each weight class.
  • mft_ 2mo ago
    …and with the size of each class determined by common target memory sizes i.e. 32GB or 64GB or 128 GB minus cache and a little overhead
• lardosaurusrex 2mo ago
  "the companies with the most to lose saw which way the wind was blowing and switched sides" mightve been an apt title.
• steele 2mo ago
  We demand that possible all avenues to observe, replicate, and resell exogenous value remain uninhibited until ROI and monopoly is achieved!
• kittikitti 2mo ago
  Now that their lawyers have cornered everyone trying out open weight models and banned the ones they can, they put out a statement like this.
• novaleaf 2mo ago
  Some irony: I subscribe to Claude and Codex (20x plans), and now Kimi. Why Kimi? because K3 is the only frontier model I can have a serious conversation with about my product's security. (I did apply for OpenAi's Cyber Pilot but got no response)
  • torginus 2mo ago
    The product strategy of 'consumer-grade' AI making deliberately insecure software, and then selling you limited access to the model that can fix it (if they think you deserve to pay them) is just diabolical. (Grade 3 AI which can hack both previous tiers is exclusively sold to the highest bidder.)
    • realusername 2mo ago
      > AI making deliberately insecure software, and then selling you limited access to the model that can fix it (if they think you deserve to pay them) is just diabolical. It's also not a very good marketing strategy, secure software and quality also goes in pair and it just makes me doubt about the output of Fable/Sol
    • novaleaf 2mo ago
      I don't think it's nefarious, but the end result leads to a pretty frustrating experience by anybody needing actual security work. (and without the organizational deep pockets to obtain SOC 2 attestation)
    • mathisfun123 2mo ago
      [flagged]
    • sublinear 2mo ago
      That's really delusional and dismissive of the huge amount of skill still required on the human end.
  • ozgrakkurt 2mo ago
    > K3 is the only frontier model I can have a serious conversation with about my product's security. This is wrong IMO. You should have a serious conversation about your products security with someone who is actually trained on that subject. LLMs are useless if you don't already know more about the thing than the LLM, or if you don't care too much about the outcome (internal tools etc.)
• ronbenton 2mo ago
  So the people lagging in the commercial model game are issuing this warning? Got it.
• pietz 2mo ago
  Companies that are hurt by open weight models fight against them. Companies that benefit from open weight models fight overregulation. Color me surprised.
• surcap526 2mo ago
  [dead]
• heisenbit 2mo ago
  Ultimately the market will balance demand and supply. From a strategic perspective big players want to get to a level playing field as soon as possible as then their market reach and capital wins the game. Pesky nimble small closed upstarts are in the best case a costly distraction and in the worst case a threat - Antropic and Openai did not sign the letter. Predictable power play by corporate strategy and legal departments.
• _3u10 2mo ago
  You can’t train on our models trained on human text, that is stealing the IP we stole first!
• Razengan 2mo ago
  Wait.. If "distillation" produces better results than the "original" models, why don't the US model owners do it to themselves? Have ChatGPT 5.6 talk to itself to produce 5.7 or whatever? And since they already know which requests came from China or looked like distillation, can't they just replay those same prompts?
  • dannyw 2mo ago
    They already do and everyone has been using that concept for years now, it's known as RLAIF.
• bethekidyouwant 2mo ago
  How do you ban a model? Makes no sense ill just call in “not Chinese model” and sell it in America.
• gloryjulio 2mo ago
  Openai and Anthropic's doom porn are also not helping their cause. The public will turn against them and watch their margin get eaten alive by open weight models
• Robdel12 2mo ago
  https://www.anthropic.com/news/donation-public-first-action https://www.anthropic.com/news/donation-public-first-action Probably because anthropic is pouring $40 million dollars into a political pact to regulate models. And they have not been quiet about wanting to ban/regulate OSS models either. I have no idea why HN still treats them like ~their~ they are the ethical good guy. Edit: I can’t English. At least we know this came from my dumb swishy brain
  • cogman10 2mo ago
    > I have no idea why HN still treats them like their the ethical good guy. I don't know that HN usually does. But they did buy a decent amount of publicity by (initially) telling the US government no in using the models for war.
    • adastra22 2mo ago
      They never did that. They said all they required was a human in the loop for kill decisions. No autonomous kill drones.
      • cschep 2mo ago
        They did something Sam wouldn't do at the very least.
      • daymanstep 2mo ago
        Human in the loop is infeasible in comms denied areas which is what we have in Ukraine/Russia right now. It's why Ukraine and Russia are now using fully autonomous drones. That's the only real solution to jamming.
        • deleted 2mo ago
          [deleted]
        • adastra22 2mo ago
          What does that have to do with LLMs hosted by Anthropic. They didn't say the Dept of War couldn't make kill bots. They said no using Claude to make kill decisions. A quadcopter drone running on a Raspberry Pi isn't running an Anthropic model locally.
• bergheim 2mo ago
  Wow, imagine that they would say that, so strange, the ones without a skin in the game except for yay open source models! The world would be better off without these three companies, how about that.
• applicative 2mo ago
  Everyone keeps assuming that China will forever be publishing these models, but it is clear as a bell that that day is over. In the end every model will be buried under state control for the simple reason that they will soon be really dangerous, as China understands better than anyone. They will give Kimi K3 to the Sinaloa cartel and the US military, but that's about the end of it. Perfecting these autonomous agential coding AIs just moved way way faster than anyone expected. People are desperately trying to save their principles from six months ago but it's a different world. They can work out their issues with Trump, Dario and Sam, but it is Xi who will shut all this down.
  • trollbridge 2mo ago
    I don’t think the Sinoloa cartel cares at all about frontier models, and the military already runs their own locally deployed editions of Mythos.
    • applicative 2mo ago
      Of course the cartel crazies use frontier models! https://www.wired.com/story/how-mexicos-cjng-drug-cartel-embraced-ai-drones-and-social-media/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-mexicos-cjng-drug-cartel-emb...
  • rolymath 2mo ago
    > that day is over. I see zero indications of this. As a matter of fact, I see evidence of the opposite, the Chinese government has just come out in support of open weight AI last week.
• kpw94 2mo ago
  > OpenAI and Anthropic, which are gearing up for potentially massive IPOs, did not sign the letter. Not anymore, OpenAI did sign it: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/topics/open-weight/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/top...
• thimbleberry 2mo ago
  in english: nvidia: dont regulate, more models means we get to sell more GPUs. microsoft: dont regulate, open weight models might be our best bet, since we dont have any good inhouse models meta: dont regulate, we bought a load of GPUs and dont know what to with them, may be we can rent them out to run open weight models.
• firemelt 2mo ago
  now open ur driver on linux
• Razengan 2mo ago
  So, say if they do "ban" open-weight models, how would that ban effectively work? Will US ISPs refuse connections to IPs of websites/servers that host those models? What about downloading via BitTorrent etc and running on distributed networks etc?
  • imhoguy 2mo ago
    It will be like DeCSS. Now imagine models (links) in QR code spread around, or steganographied in BluRay MKVs. So much creative disobedience.
• luizanao 2mo ago
  I am glad that Telnyx (the company I work for) signed that off as well.
• Danox 2mo ago
  In short, they want it both ways…