Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qwen 3.8

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 793 posts

Re: Qwen 3.8

#311

Post by mike_hearn »

oceanplexian wrote: post #307
gardnr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to say what their motivation is. The Chinese firms seem to be working hard to commoditize intelligence which may be the most effective way to debase American frontier labs. And yeah: it also happens to be really good for humanity.

> It's hard to say what their motivation is. Not for anyone who reads history. Back in the late 18th century, England was the world's top economy, in big part due to its textile industry. England had an export ban on the technology, but textile worker named Samuel Slater brought blueprints over (Supposedly in response to a bounty posted in a newspaper by the US government!). The technology diffused rapidly because th…

Really? The USA has built a ton of AI datacenters, exactly because it does have energy. The US IP system has flexed to allow training on all copyrighted content - compare that to Europe where such training is effectively forbidden. Britain doesn't even allow commercial web crawls! And the US has allowed the entire world to sign up and use its LLM APIs.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#312

Post by yeodev »

notnullorvoid wrote: post #300

Always nice to see more open-weights in the heavy model class. I can only hope this trend continues, causing OpenAI and Anthropic to crash and burn.

Same, you can think of China whatever you want but they're really good at giving big tech a reality check when it comes to AI. We now got a pretty wide range of open-weight models (from DeepSeek and MiMo over to Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8 & GLM-5.2) and I think it's most important that there's a variance not only between quality / intelligence and also cost.

I mean even the cheapest option for Luna is still more expensive than anything DS or MiMo is offering right now and I think a new Ministral model would also hit hard there because we also need some variance in model sources, we can't rely only on the US and China.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#313

Post by moffkalast »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #213
moffkalast wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, lmao even. Of course they train on literally everything they get their hands on, like everyone else. If you need privacy, that's what local models are for.

It's a flippant answer to a real question. Anthropic, OpenAI, and even Grok have "Don't train on my data" knobs. Whether you trust them is different, but there ARE knobs on other hosted AI companies.

Those knobs don't do anything, don't be silly. It's just optics.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#314

Post by CamperBob2 »

NiloCK wrote: post #280
zozbot234 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a Twitter thread making rounds by Dean Ball about deceleration in AI development caused by open models and I can’t understand how people don’t see that it’s true: open models dismantle the frontier lab capex spend potential by reducing the training budget to zero in the limit. If you're worried about an AGI arms race between the U.S. and China putting AI Safety at risk, then the fact that inherently less kn…

The logic, whose premises you can take or leave: Even at the level of, say, Opus 4.5+, open weight models give a quick turnaround to every Joe and Jane on earth having easy access to pretty high quality improvised weapons design, cyber / auto-fraud capabilities, etc. All the existing models (closed and open) put up decent resistance to participating in activities like this, and especially behind API walls with conten…

You don't need AI to build a nuke in your garage. You need uranium.

And if you have uranium, you still don't need AI. You need a pocket calculator, a library card, and a death wish.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#315

Post by conradev »

adrian_b wrote: post #4

I assume that this announcement has been prompted by that of Moonshot AI, which has just announced a 2.8T parameter open-weights LLM, Kimi K3, to be published on Huggingface by 27 July. Now the response of Alibaba is that they will also publish soon a big open weights LLM, the 2.4T parameter Qwen 3.8. I wonder if Alibaba has always planned to make this big LLM open weights, or they have chosen to do this now, to bett…

  On social media in China there is an oft-repeated joke that goes something like this: In other countries, governments intervene to prevent anti-competitive behaviour; here (in China), they intervene to curb competition.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/what-i...

Re: Qwen 3.8

#316

Post by catigula »

notnullorvoid wrote: post #300

Always nice to see more open-weights in the heavy model class. I can only hope this trend continues, causing OpenAI and Anthropic to crash and burn.

Damaging American AI companies just means that China has the lead with closed models.

China isn’t an altruistic state. They’re an aggressor in many fields, economic and otherwise, and this one of them.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#317

Post by Hamuko »

blfr wrote: post #305
notnullorvoid wrote: post #300

Always nice to see more open-weights in the heavy model class. I can only hope this trend continues, causing OpenAI and Anthropic to crash and burn.

As much as I dislike 'em, this sounds mean spirited. And Alibaba admits in this very tweet that Fable is next level (it is).

I want as much misfortune as possible to befall OpenAI and Sam Altman after what they did to the memory market.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#318

Post by CamperBob2 »

DanielHB wrote: post #46
hodgehog11 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is pretty safe to say at this point that having large open LLM models available is better for humanity than them remaining proprietary. Echoing Linus Torvalds' recent comments, AI is genuinely useful right now, and is here to stay in one form or another.

The fear is not about the models open weights it is the erosion of training capability in other countries. Why train models when they do it for free? Until they don't of course, or they start doing what the US is doing right now by locking out some models to government only or internal market only. What people should be afraid is the rug pull.

What people should be afraid is the rug pull.

How exactly do you plan to pull a rug that's in my basement? The only people who are in a position to pull rugs are closed-model vendors.

And if a nation-state or other entity can't train a model that outperforms the open-weight SotA in a given respect, then they shouldn't waste electricity trying. A more-enlightened civilization would join forces and make the combined result available to all.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#319

Post by NiloCK »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #314
NiloCK wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic, whose premises you can take or leave: Even at the level of, say, Opus 4.5+, open weight models give a quick turnaround to every Joe and Jane on earth having easy access to pretty high quality improvised weapons design, cyber / auto-fraud capabilities, etc. All the existing models (closed and open) put up decent resistance to participating in activities like this, and especially behind API walls with conten…

You don't need AI to build a nuke in your garage. You need uranium. And if you have uranium, you still don't need AI. You need a pocket calculator, a library card, and a death wish.

Yes - persons with death wishes having arbitrarily powerful consultation is the crux of it.

Apologies for the bad example. Replace w/ gain of function / whatever else, or just brainstorm with your local model, ect.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#320

Post by glimshe »

yeodev wrote: post #312
notnullorvoid wrote: post #300

Always nice to see more open-weights in the heavy model class. I can only hope this trend continues, causing OpenAI and Anthropic to crash and burn.

Same, you can think of China whatever you want but they're really good at giving big tech a reality check when it comes to AI. We now got a pretty wide range of open-weight models (from DeepSeek and MiMo over to Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8 & GLM-5.2) and I think it's most important that there's a variance not only between quality / intelligence and also cost. I mean even the cheapest option for Luna is still more expensive tha…

"China" isn't giving anything. These are Chinese companies leveraging their best competitive strategy at the moment: competing on price.
Post reply on HN