4 ms·
Interesting... So Chinese models are not so bad?
by sscaryterry 2mo ago
Interesting... So Chinese models are not so bad?
- cromka 2mo agoLooks like they're going for good PR now, to avoid smearing by the "Western" models. Smart!
- croon 2mo agoI'd love to live in a society where people and corporations do good things for PR.
- blooalien 2mo ago> I'd love to live in a society where people and corporations do good things for PR. Maybe so, but I'm not sure I'd like to live in China of all places. (Don't get me wrong. Lotta places I'd like to visit if I ever got the chance, and China's on that list, but to live there? I don't think so.) Maybe one of the Nordic countries?
- vjvjvjvjghv 2mo agoPR for good things doesn’t make money.
- zorked 2mo agoThere's a chance that the real reason why they want to ban Chinese models is that they are so good at fixing bugs and preventing exploits that intelligence agencies have been using for espionage and surveillance for a long time.
- maipen 2mo agoDo you actually believe this?
- sscaryterry 2mo agoCritical thinking says this is not only possible but likely too.
- VulgarExigency 2mo agoThe CIA ran one of the world's largest cryptography companies, for DECADES[1]. Are you truly so naive that you believe intelligence agencies that have more to gain from stifling the discovery of vulnerabilities they know of and use wouldn't do so? [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-security/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...
- meowface 2mo agoI believe it is unlikely. (Not because I do not believe NSA is hoarding 0-days, but for many other reasons.) I'm curious: to any professional vulnerability researchers reading this, what do you think?
- budsniffer952 2mo ago[flagged]
- meowface 2mo agoSadly.
- neves 2mo agoI used to call everything a conspiracy theory, but then Glenn Greenwald published "No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State". Now i know that reality is worse than the worst conspiracy theorist.
- this_user 2mo agoYou should probably realise that the world has radically changed since then. This kind of thing works when you have a significant lead in the field that makes keeping vulnerabilities open sufficiently low risk for your own side. But if your adversaries have similar capabilities, then the calculation changes.
- andy_ppp 2mo agoAnyone who knows anything realises banning things is a) impossible and b) your enemies will use them anyway, you are just depriving your own side of the advantages.
- mcintyre1994 2mo agoIn this case depriving US companies would be the point though, so that's not necessarily a disadvantage.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago> Anyone who knows anything realises banning things is a) impossible and Maybe "It's really hard" is more accurate? We (humanity) for most part basically agreed to ban the usage of various chemical weapons in wartime, which seems to have drastically reduced the usage of it, even though it's still used by shit actors today from time to time. But it's hard to deny that usage didn't decrease after banning it, which makes "banning" maybe not completely useless for certain things. "Banning" things that can be easily copied over cyberweb transportation pipes feels like an fool's errand though, regardless of what it is. It's just too easy to get around, compared to actual physical items I suppose.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Oranguru 2mo agoThis is different now. US labs and companies are not releasing frontier-level models openly (specially those capable of assisting cyber intelligence work), but commercializing them instead. Thus, any ban would not be symmetrical to begin with, and that is precisely what maintains the balance.
- SXX 2mo agoChemical weapons are not used not because some agreements - they just messy and only good for killing civilians. Also contaminate area and might also kill your own personnel. If you look at all other banned weapons they are all used against Ukraine by Russia and nobody gives a damn.
- ajam1507 2mo agoHow does banning the models in the US prevent this?
- inigyou 2mo agoUS companies will have to use models that are restricted from fixing bugs.
- mcintyre1994 2mo agoI don't think this really works because the Chinese government is going to be incentivised to tip off the US companies to deny the US government those exploits. I guess maybe that's what the open source patch program here is about, making sure banning the models doesn't work because they can just report the exploits without the company running the model themselves.
- cyanydeez 2mo agowhen in doubt, it's better to assume capitalism than anything else.
- numpad0 2mo agoThey've always been good enough for double digit less money. Always. Anyone thinking "Chinese models fake models built using dirty distillation scam" don't know what they're talking about. Distillation is just forcing the model to use an exam prep workbook for training instead of generic publicly available textbooks. The models themselves has to be smart enough for that to work. It's the exact same thing as Asian tiger mom double schoolwork strategy, to paint a picture.
- budsniffer952 2mo agoTheir best models are getting more and more expensive, and still aren't SOTA. It's almost like there's an actual cost to developing these models, and the Chinese don't have magic dirt that allows them to do it at a fraction of the cost.
- fwip 2mo agoTo carry on this analogy - do test prep workbooks make you meaningfully more competent in general, or is it benchmaxing? (Versus studying textbooks for a similar time, of course.)