121–130 of 978 posts
>And open almost always wins when it comes to infrastructure adoption. They lost me here. Too many counterexamples exist for me to even continue.
Here is a counterexample to whatever counterexample you have in mind - Most popular models on OpenRouter right now: https://openrouter.ai/models?categories=programming&order=mo... Top 7 are all open models.
This is a very strange article considering that Llama, the mother of all open-weight models, has led to anything but success for Meta. Also, enterprises don't give a rip if models are open. They care about zero data retention (and sticking with whatever vendor they're already using). This blog post is suspiciously close to being a restatement of what Alex Karp recently said on CNBC[0]. It's important to remember he's…
This is also a strange way of framing it, though. Llama was released as a research project, it was never intended to create some vast ARR revenue stream or reframe the way people look at AI. If Meta wanted to exploit it for personal success then they had lots of opportunities to do so.
With OpenAI and Anthropic's profitability under question, it is up in the air whether or not America's stance towards AI will work. If they can't convince the world that they're a proper software business, then China's philosophy will win by-default.
> I have serious concerns about how these models might reflect Chinese government perspectives (try asking them about Tiananmen Square). And I have serious concerns about the American ones. Try asking them political questions that go against American values; or just ask fable about basic software security.
>And open almost always wins when it comes to infrastructure adoption. They lost me here. Too many counterexamples exist for me to even continue.
Here is a counterexample to whatever counterexample you have in mind - Most popular models on OpenRouter right now: https://openrouter.ai/models?categories=programming&order=mo... Top 7 are all open models.
AI models cost tens of millions to train. Offering them for free won’t justify the upfront costs. The Chinese model of model training/open sourcing only makes sense in the context of the overall strategy of undercutting American frontier labs’ profit margins.
Imagine if, in 10 years time, every school kid is learning the causes of the US civil war from an LLM, getting their essays on hiroshima and nagasaki graded by an LLM, and a million other things.
A country with competitive LLMs gets to decide whether "it was more complicated than just slavery", and whether "it was tragic but necessary, saving lives over all".
Countries without competitive LLMs are effectively going to be buying all their history, economics and sociology textbooks from abroad.
I’m suspicious of some quotes here, “80% of startups using Chinese models,” doesn’t seem quite right to me. I just interviewed at several startups and they were all using the US models. Maybe they have some minor use of Chinese models but the bread-and-butter of most of these businesses model use is the Claude and Codex subscriptions.
If you saw the engineers you’d see 80% Macs and 20% Linux laptops.
The statistic would technically be true.
I use Chinese open weight models a lot, but they’re not what I reach for when I’m doing important coding work.
> I have serious concerns about how these models might reflect Chinese government perspectives (try asking them about Tiananmen Square). And I have serious concerns about the American ones. Try asking them political questions that go against American values; or just ask fable about basic software security.
For instance, try asking American models about the Palestinian genocide
AI models cost tens of millions to train. Offering them for free won’t justify the upfront costs. The Chinese model of model training/open sourcing only makes sense in the context of the overall strategy of undercutting American frontier labs’ profit margins.