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

Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 337 posts

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#51

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

Freedumbs wrote: post #35
satvikpendem wrote: post #4

The issue is not open weights as a whole, indeed Hegseth himself said they are important for America (if American made, presumably); the issue is Chinese models, whether open or not, and that's what's looking to be banned, and nothing in this article suggests otherwise.

Why anyone would care what Hegseth thinks about open weight models? What's wrong with Chinese models? The censorship? I think it's good to have diversity of opinion. Get US flavored output on sensitive subjects from US models and ZH on ZH models. That's a useful tool.

China is doing open models better. I think there's little going in Hagueseth's head other than the usual reactionary nationalism reflex.

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#52

Post by Buttons840 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #4

The issue is not open weights as a whole, indeed Hegseth himself said they are important for America (if American made, presumably); the issue is Chinese models, whether open or not, and that's what's looking to be banned, and nothing in this article suggests otherwise.

What is a "Chinese model"?

If I change one weight in Kimi, is it still a Chinese model?

If I fine-tune Kimi on pro-America nationalistic freedom loving anti-Chinese propaganda, is it still a Chinese model?

If I distill Kimi from one server to the next without ever directly transferring any weights, is it still a Chinese model?

If Claude accidentally trains on some of Kimi's output, is Claude then considered to be a Chinese model?

If China's next open-weight model is released secretly through a European company, is it still a Chinese model?

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#53

Post by lenerdenator »

fidotron wrote: post #30
roenxi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...the issue is Chinese models, whether open or not, and that's what's looking to be banned... Is the US planning to invade China and take away their models? Because otherwise China is still going to have the models even if the US bans them. I don't think they're going to be going with the US position on this one.

It's the same patronizing nonsense as when all the US webcos pulled out of the Chinese market in some misguided supposed protest believing the Chinese so incapable of rolling their own Google, Amazon or WhatsApp they will come begging the americans to go back. Now the western tech universe goes to China for ideas.

If by "pulled out of the Chinese market" you mean "were hacked by the Chinese government in a way that compromised their intellectual property and the safety of dissidents", then yes [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#54

Post by furyofantares »

gizmodo59 wrote: post #49
furyofantares wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very confused by this comment, I don't know who you're referring to.

None of the people signed this have ever produced a frontier model at a given date (Which is to say its neither Google/OAI/Ant). The ones that sign are meta, musk (who is in the shovel selling business as well), hugging face obviously and few others Note: Just pointing out the comment intent and nothing else

OK, I guess my confusion was that the effort to ban open weights models is what I would categorize as "groveling at the white house to try to stop their competition".

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#56

Post by whattheheckheck »

newpavlov wrote: post #25
derektank wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier Ungovernable makes intuitive sense, but I don’t understand how open weight models could be decelerationist or slow the development of the frontier. Was there an argument for those positions?

Open weight models challenge the "winner takes all" hypothesis, which motivates the astronomical valuations and acts as a justification for trains of cash dumped into AI development. In other words, if AI models become a commodity, the "AI leaders" will not be able to burn the cash like they do today, thus resulting in a "slower" (one could say instead "more sustainable") development of AI models.

Tough shit welcome to capitalism

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#59

Post by skeledrew »

wat10000 wrote: post #39
derektank wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier Ungovernable makes intuitive sense, but I don’t understand how open weight models could be decelerationist or slow the development of the frontier. Was there an argument for those positions?

It's a copy/paste of the arguments against open source software from decades ago. The argument goes: innovation requires profit motive, and profit motive requires IP rights. Of course, this was soundly disproven in software and I don't see any reason it should be different here.

Chinese providers are actively debunking that argument by innovating on and releasing open weight models.

Re: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta warn against overregulating open-weight models

#60

Post by pegasus »

throwaway323929 wrote: post #43

[flagged]

Regardless of the motivations behind the paper, the fact is that they are right. It's a topsy-turvy world where America closes up and China opens, and I hope it gets corrected soon.

And besides, it seems to me like the ethical choice. Given how these models are, in some very real sense, mechanical plagiators, built on the generosity of creators past and present, some of them now in danger of being replaced by the machine. I think the least the labs can do is open these models up. These and other such considerations were the reason OpenAI started with that name. Of course, it was questionable that those ideals would survive the encounter with generational wealth. Just look up what the founders of Google were saying about advertising when they were two students tinkering at an as of yet unproven tech. Same thing for OpenAI, self-interest speaks that much louder when there's real money on the table.

It just boggles the mind that people now make excuses for their all-too-predictable about-turn.

Post reply on HN