851–860 of 983 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think these typical slurs don't really make any sense. Corrupt, pliable and stupid are not slurs. > There's tremendous money and influence in opposition to things he's doing that he could easily cash in on if he wanted Is there a Big Solar or Big Wind or Green lobby that's comparable to Big Oil? Is there a huge lobby group for national healthcare? Is there tremendous funding for anti- Big Tech and Data Center mov…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but if you are a business in the US, you might not be able to use it legally. And, through the US exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction, businesses in Europe doing business with the US might not be able to use it either, for fear of reprisals. Even though the model is Chinese and hosted in Europe. This sort of thing happens all the time, especially in the finance and defence sectors.
This might work if Chinese models are on par with US models or slightly worse. However if Chinese models start to become noticeably better[0] than US models, it will be hard to hold the line and businesses would start risking using illegal models to get an business advantage, which would be as simple as making HTTP requests to an inference provider outside the US. The AI companies themselves show that there's a high…
Look at how online poker was "banned" in 2011. It was and always has been legal to play online poker in the US, they just made it illegal to accept wire payments for online gambling which destroyed the American market for it.
So many comments in this thread miss the point; an American "ban" on Chinese open-weights is not aiming to make individual usage impossible and wouldn't be accomplished by throwing people in jail. The point is to make their usage difficult and uncertain enough that large companies will opt for American alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can understand (not necessarily defend) protectionism for products with nonzero manufacturing cost and some required physical size and such. I am befuddled when the same policies are applied to products with marginally zero manufacturing cost, no real physical size, and such. Regulating ideas is hard folks.
The cost of those output tokens is not zero or marginal.
Banning them would hand European startups a gift of low cost inference so I am 100% in support of this. The globalists had no problem selling out our manufacturing to China, now they are crying because China can provide a cheaper service. Anthropic and OpenAI have executed the greatest intellectual property heist in human history and they are angry because China stole from thieves and distillation isn't even technica…
The globalists of old would happily hand AI dominance to China in exchange for a decade or two of short-term gains. The fact that protectionist measures are even being considered shows that the globalists who sold out manufacturing to China aren't at the wheel anymore.
You guys need to wake up and realize that Anthropic are the enemy. They just increased their political spending as well... Stop giving them your money or this never ends.
Can you elaborate on what makes you say this? I'm really struggling to understand the source of all the Anthropic hate on HN recently.
I‘m not even sure what the argument for banning Chinese models/open weights even is supposed to be? 1. if it’s to stop hackers doing hacking things with „uncontrollable models“ then, well… they’re already doing something illegal to begin with, why would they care about breaking another law running these models? 2. if it’s to stop foreign actors, then that ban would not apply to them anyway 3. it’s not stopping distil…
Proprietary model weights are IP, their outputs are not IP and I can't imagine a court decision that would rule otherwise because that would set an extremely far reaching and dangerous precedent, even for American businesses. I don't think distillation as 'stealing IP' has any legal legs. They can probably claim violation of ToS at best because the terms of use do prohibit use for training rival models.
Your looking at this from a legal perspective. Consider a diplomatic one instead. Model training is expensive. Model distillation is cheaper. If you train models, and that lets your adversary distill them for much cheaper, that gives your adversary an advantage. Giving your adversary an advantage is bad, so you address it. It doesn’t matter whether the advantage was gained legally, not even if it was fair. The advant…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But thats also an admittance that the American labs can’t compete on merit anymore Merit was never competitive. Mass consumption habits select hard for cost, and this is an industry driven entirely by scaling factors. If you can scale for cheaper, you win. Ivy League-decorated researchers aren't doing RnD for free. The frontier labs can only go so cheap before they're so far in the red that VC gets cold feet. Leavi…
> Do you know what happens if that goes up in flames I think in capitalism thats called a market correction? > Do you understand how much money is tied up in the industry? If the free market „virtue signaling“ no longer matters, then they could’ve also put a stop-gap on investment volume to protect the economy against over-reliance? Or how about go full plan-economy and just dictate price per token until investors ge…