Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

Post by WarmWash » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

chalupa-supreme wrote: post #154

WarmWash wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Training on copyright was ruled to be transformative. Anthropic was just fined for not paying for the pirated books they copied into a training database. Same as anyone else who copied pirated IP onto their hard drive. However, training an AI on copyright has been ruled to be sufficiently transformative and not a violation of IP laws. The same way you can make a gameplay clone of Call of Duty without any issue.

So they got fined for… stealing? Also, if I clone Call of Duty, and use their skins, make a similar soundtrack, call my maps the same, then there will definitely be an issue. I support the use of AI and all, but to hide behind transformative use of copyrighted intellectual property is a discredit to the colossal amount of human work and knowledge that these companies pirated and had their models trained on.

Post by nickthegreek » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

myrmidon wrote: post #149

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a silly argument. Like yes, obviously it’s of less U.S. concern if one American is robbing another versus a foreign interest. We can deal with one whenever while the other creates constraints. The better arguments are the ones made in the article. Open weights increase competition and thus AI availability in the U.S. economy.

This is not robbing. Undesired distillation is a ToS violation, at best. There is not even jurisdiction over Chinese companies, because they don't sell their LLM subscribtions, unlike US companies, and those comitted much more severe violations in getting their training material than a ToS violation or two (Anthropic already found guilty). edit: I don't see this as legal argument against the ban, more like a justific…

Post by runarberg » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 4:24 PM UTC

sscaryterry wrote: post #169

sheeshkebab wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone going to public library, copying every book out of it and then selling them as their own are thieves.

I don't believe anything is being sold here :)

Post by mlinhares » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 4:24 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #155

GlickWick wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do care. It's an unfortunate truth that we're exiting a global peace era and entering one of (hopefully just...) implied conflict. Our biggest geopolitical rival that's been threatening a hot war also distilling the things we build is not a good thing. Trump is a huge self-own by our electorate sadly, but being concerned about a conflict between China and the US is a very bi-partisan concern for good reason.

Luckily for the peace side, the USA's inability to achieve their mission objectives in a war against an adversary that was perceived as being substantially weaker means they are very much less likely to engage in one with a "near peer". The take away from modern conflicts is that massive military size disparities don't translate into successful invasions anymore. In other words, it's unlikely USA will pursue a confli…

Post by nekusar » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 4:25 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #152

nekusar wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are public libraries thieves? Is Anna's Library thieves? Is Library Genesis thieves? Is Archive.org thieves? Is PirateBay thieves? They all look like public libraries to me. And better access to all human knowledge is a net positive for everyone.

That’s fine too, in that case Open Weight models made by China are doing humanity a favour