4 ms·

Our desire for better local models just happens to coincide with China's desire to destroy the western AI company business model by releasing local models. I do

Our desire for better local models just happens to coincide with China's desire to destroy the western AI company business model by releasing local models. I doubt there's any philanthropy involved.

horacemorace 2mo ago
Which coincidentally helps average people far more than the already rich investors in a few western mega corps. If it weren’t for these big Chinese model releases the western companies wouldn’t release anything at all. The field would be advancing at a snail’s pace.
FooBarWidget 2mo ago
I find it really weird why people keep framing decisions like this in terms of morals and selflessness, e.g., "is/isn't philantropy". This is about relationships and mutual benefit. They literally announced their motivations and world few a few weeks ago at the Shanghai AI conference. They want to ally with the global south. They see AI like the industrial revolution: the global south was left behind for a long time and, as a result has been exploited and has struggled to develop for a long time. They see open AI as a way to level the playing field to prevent such "new historical injustices" (in the sense of the Century of Humiliation and the Opium Wars). Concrete policies to back this rhetoric include technology transfer and training programs for the global south. They frame this latter not as philantropy but as generosity, in the sense that it generates goodwill and what goes around comes around. They believe that helping the global south and cultivating relationships will eventually help China. Think about it. Your local businesses are not charities either. That doesn't make them bad, nor does it mean you derive no benefit. It still benefits you to cultivate good relationships with them.
- yfontana 2mo ago
  China has been using that rhetoric of "helping" the global south ever since it emerged as a super power. In most cases, it has a lot less to do with generosity than with securing natural resources and international influence.
  - FooBarWidget 2mo ago
    Generosity and securing natural resources and international influence don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you interview Africans, then they say that while cooperation with China has problems, they sure are glad they at least have more choices now, and on the whole China's existence is beneficial. The alternative — only western choices and no China — sure hasn't served them well in the past half century. No matter what you believe is their "true" intentions, offering 5000 training and tech transfer positions to the global south is a very concrete and unambiguous move. As are forgiving African loans and unilaterally offering zero trade tariffs.
    - yfontana 2mo ago
      If what China has been doing is considered generous, then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years. I'm not saying that China's investment in the South hasn't had positive effects. But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations.
      - FooBarWidget 2mo ago
        > then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years. Well, yes? Why does it have to be either-or? > But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations. Automatically assuming nefarious intentions behind all moves is also rarely a relevant lens. And as I said, and I'm not sure why you keep ignoring it, but I define "generosity" in the sense of mutual benefit. Being nice to your neighbors and helping them, benefits you due to generated goodwill. I'm explicitly not defining generosity in the sense of selfless philanthropy where you get nothing back. The idea that doing good things for others eventually results in good things coming your way, and thus that one should do good things for others even it's selfishly motivated (and also that there's nothing wrong with this), is not a crazy idea. In a lot of cultures (Chinese included), gifts are not simply gifts. There is the social expectation that the gift is reciprocated. Western cynicists may call this "manipulation" or "influence". The Chinese see this as the start of a relationship of a cycle of mutual gift giving.
Manfrednotfunny 2mo ago
Its not just that. China also puts pressure on rich chinese flaunting their riches. They have a common prosperity initiative.

Our desire for better local models just happens to coincide with China's desire to destroy the western AI company business model by releasing local models. I doubt there's any philanthropy involved.

horacemorace 2mo ago

Which coincidentally helps average people far more than the already rich investors in a few western mega corps. If it weren’t for these big Chinese model releases the western companies wouldn’t release anything at all. The field would be advancing at a snail’s pace.

FooBarWidget 2mo ago

I find it really weird why people keep framing decisions like this in terms of morals and selflessness, e.g., "is/isn't philantropy". This is about relationships and mutual benefit. They literally announced their motivations and world few a few weeks ago at the Shanghai AI conference. They want to ally with the global south. They see AI like the industrial revolution: the global south was left behind for a long time and, as a result has been exploited and has struggled to develop for a long time. They see open AI as a way to level the playing field to prevent such "new historical injustices" (in the sense of the Century of Humiliation and the Opium Wars). Concrete policies to back this rhetoric include technology transfer and training programs for the global south. They frame this latter not as philantropy but as generosity, in the sense that it generates goodwill and what goes around comes around. They believe that helping the global south and cultivating relationships will eventually help China. Think about it. Your local businesses are not charities either. That doesn't make them bad, nor does it mean you derive no benefit. It still benefits you to cultivate good relationships with them.

yfontana 2mo ago
China has been using that rhetoric of "helping" the global south ever since it emerged as a super power. In most cases, it has a lot less to do with generosity than with securing natural resources and international influence.
- FooBarWidget 2mo ago
  Generosity and securing natural resources and international influence don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you interview Africans, then they say that while cooperation with China has problems, they sure are glad they at least have more choices now, and on the whole China's existence is beneficial. The alternative — only western choices and no China — sure hasn't served them well in the past half century. No matter what you believe is their "true" intentions, offering 5000 training and tech transfer positions to the global south is a very concrete and unambiguous move. As are forgiving African loans and unilaterally offering zero trade tariffs.
  - yfontana 2mo ago
    If what China has been doing is considered generous, then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years. I'm not saying that China's investment in the South hasn't had positive effects. But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations.
    - FooBarWidget 2mo ago
      > then so should the tens of billions in foreign aid that the West has sent to the South over the years. Well, yes? Why does it have to be either-or? > But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations. Automatically assuming nefarious intentions behind all moves is also rarely a relevant lens. And as I said, and I'm not sure why you keep ignoring it, but I define "generosity" in the sense of mutual benefit. Being nice to your neighbors and helping them, benefits you due to generated goodwill. I'm explicitly not defining generosity in the sense of selfless philanthropy where you get nothing back. The idea that doing good things for others eventually results in good things coming your way, and thus that one should do good things for others even it's selfishly motivated (and also that there's nothing wrong with this), is not a crazy idea. In a lot of cultures (Chinese included), gifts are not simply gifts. There is the social expectation that the gift is reciprocated. Western cynicists may call this "manipulation" or "influence". The Chinese see this as the start of a relationship of a cycle of mutual gift giving.

Manfrednotfunny 2mo ago

Its not just that. China also puts pressure on rich chinese flaunting their riches. They have a common prosperity initiative.