81–90 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both countries are communist countries by the way. The fact that communism naturally evolves in totalitarianism should be noted.
Yeah? Classless, stateless, moneyless societies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But increasingly this describes Western countries more and more, particularly the United States.
Its not even close. The west pushes back against a traffic light camera, china has had individual tracking for over a decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already offer “superior models at a premium price” but the issue is that they are not that much superior than the open models and in some cases are even worse(I.e Anthropic Fable refuses to fix a login/signup page, not to mention any kind of actual opsec work). You already can do more with open models than with proprietary models because you can’t tweak the proprietary models to your liking. Just as OpenAI and A…
Well that's a bad example because a UI isn't a model. But if you hold that it's true that returns compound and that they do so for intelligence/performance for AI models, then having the lead matters quite a bit and eventually you'll just get into an iPhone vs Android Dollar General situation where sure they do the same thing and one is even substantially cheaper but all the profits go to the iPhone. If you hold that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already offer “superior models at a premium price” but the issue is that they are not that much superior than the open models and in some cases are even worse(I.e Anthropic Fable refuses to fix a login/signup page, not to mention any kind of actual opsec work). You already can do more with open models than with proprietary models because you can’t tweak the proprietary models to your liking. Just as OpenAI and A…
Well that's a bad example because a UI isn't a model. But if you hold that it's true that returns compound and that they do so for intelligence/performance for AI models, then having the lead matters quite a bit and eventually you'll just get into an iPhone vs Android Dollar General situation where sure they do the same thing and one is even substantially cheaper but all the profits go to the iPhone. If you hold that…
I think China's strategy is to sell you products with AI embedded (i.e. robots, washing machines etc) not chat subscriptions like OpenAI and Anthropic. China sees AI as infrastructure (i.e. internet bandwidth speed) not necessary a product.
Being the best matters but what you fail to see is that the open models are just sooo close and on some tasks (i.e cyber) they are better. And if you like analogies you should compare VHS vs Betamax. VHS won due the porn stuff...The history is full with example where OPEN and convenience wins over the closed stuff.
That aside I wouldn't be surprised if china releases a better open model than OpenAI and Anthropic. I would very much like to see that after (if) OpenAI and Anthropic IPO...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that's a bad example because a UI isn't a model. But if you hold that it's true that returns compound and that they do so for intelligence/performance for AI models, then having the lead matters quite a bit and eventually you'll just get into an iPhone vs Android Dollar General situation where sure they do the same thing and one is even substantially cheaper but all the profits go to the iPhone. If you hold that…
I am not sure what you mean by this `Well that's a bad example because a UI isn't a model.`. OpenAI and Anthropic simply refuse to work on signup/login applications, tell you more about cancer or other "biology" or AI stuff. That makes them just a crappy product. I think China's strategy is to sell you products with AI embedded (i.e. robots, washing machines etc) not chat subscriptions like OpenAI and Anthropic. Chin…
Sorry I thought you were talking about the actual UIs of the model providers (desktop apps for example), not whether or not they will build out login processes.
> I think China's strategy is to sell you products with AI embedded (i.e. robots, washing machines etc) not chat subscriptions like OpenAI and Anthropic. China sees AI as infrastructure (i.e. internet bandwidth speed) not necessary a product.
If that's the best thing we'll just do it too and we'll ban Chinese machines in the US at least and eventually most of the entire west.
> Being the best matters but what you fail to see is that the open models are just sooo close and on some tasks (i.e cyber) they are better. And if you like analogies you should compare VHS vs Betamax. VHS won due the porn stuff...The history is full with example where OPEN and convenience wins over the closed stuff.
Ok and then we'll just release open-weight models while Chinese models are slightly ahead if being ahead doesn't matter much and gain whatever benefits the Chinese have by doing the same.
I think the better comparison would be iPhone versus the Android field.
> I would very much like to see that after (if) OpenAI and Anthropic IPO...
You seem to be cheering for the destruction of western companies and democratic strength. Not a great look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not wish casting whatever that means. Wishcasting is describing a hypothetical. Your statement was about what you think America can do, but not about what it has proven to do already. It is wishcasting by any definition you'll find online. Economic roadblocks are not any less important than capability roadblocks, look at how proprietary UNIX went from a billion-dollar IP business to being entirely cannibalized…
> Your statement was about what you think America can do, but not about what it has proven to do already. Sorry that's nonsense. You can't simultaneously project a hypothetical Chinese capability that it hasn't proven it can do (develop the leading models) and then deny the ability of the US to do the same. > China's clones already won. Ok we'll just copy their stuff then who cares because apparently bleeding edge mo…
China does lead the frontier. If you're a cybersecurity researcher, a biologist or work in any other censored field, there's nothing that the American models can do for you. The frontier effectively begins where abliterated models can be distributed, and America releases none of them at-scale.
You can't just claim that cybersecurity and biology are non-factors in this race. There are objectively areas where Chinese AI is the only frontier; American regulation is entirely to blame.
> It's like, the thing is so valuable you can't even buy it.
We have a word for this in software actually, it's called "vaporware" in modern parlance. Good luck convincing people that Xenix and Duke Nukem Forever are too valuable for the public to own.
America's stance towards legitimate cybersecurity research is why American businesses like HuggingFace do their incident responses with GLM-5.2. If American AI is "so valuable" that people can't buy the frontier to fix legitimate problems, then China wins by default. It's already happening in several industry-leading American firms, they're not paying Anthropic or OpenAI to fix their real issues.
> Ok we'll just copy their stuff then who cares because apparently bleeding edge model development doesn't matter.
Yes, do this. OpenAI and Anthropic will inevitably turn to the US government for funding, which means that taxpayers will be financially supporting model training for weights that they won't own. If the purpose of AI research is to entrench the monopoly on power, then I would genuinely advocate for all taxpayer funds to be withheld from OpenAI and Anthropic since their products aren't contributing to the public good. There is literally no reason to copy China's state-driven investment strategy if we're not also going to copy the public ownership model. You might as well let China do the frontier research, and let America focus on hand-wringing over the consequences and writing censorship laws to prevent citizens from accessing uncensored Chinese models.
After all, it's where we're headed regardless of what China does. Anthropic, OpenAI and the current US administration have made that clear.
> Why would I trust your comment over Google's business decisions?
My comment doesn't contradict Google's business decisions. It's not an oxymoron to highlight a bad decision as part of a grander AI strategy; but so far you've failed to engage on the actual grounds of FAANG's strategies itself. You're just insisting that American businesses are right because they spend a lot of money, while failing to acknowledge that "spending lots of money" is how most financial crises start. Therefore, it seems appropriate that we acknowledge wasted investments if we want American businesses to stop digging a hole they can't get out of. The onus falls on you to argue that things like OpenCL should have died, or that the Neural Engine was the right choice for millions of iPhone owners.
The point I'm making in this regard isn't complex, you're just offended by the notion of these businesses making wrong decisions. Metal Compute Shaders is not an industry-leading inference solution. It just isn't, the free market already decided. Apple could have increased their addressable market during the datacenter boom if they supported an agnostic GPGPU compute layer like OpenCL in Apple Silicon; or, they could have freed the PCIe lanes on the rackmount Mac Pro to make it a legitimate CUDA host in a world spending trillions on ARM datacenter hardware. Instead they abandoned Khronos group, insisted on standardizing around Metal, and discontinued the Mac Pro.
Apple made some right decisions here. They also burned billions of dollars in R&D and abandoned a trillion-dollar market segment by discontinuing the Mac Pro. Despite being the most advanced ARM core designer in the world, Apple was enamored by B2C service profits and actively avoided any genuine competition that would pressure Nvidia or Apple themselves to invest in frontier research. As the richest American tech company, Apple completely failed to pivot their stack into AI inference even 10 years after CoreML was reluctantly introduced.
Compare this to how, for instance, Huawei works, and you'll see pretty quickly why ego-poisoned businesses like Apple are the antithesis of free market competition. Apple doesn't want to compete, they want to make money. They love ignoring genuinely innovative technology
> I'm not sure why you and others seem to assume that China [...] can take some action and that we can't also take some action in response
Well, China has a centrally planned economy for one. There are objectively things that their government can finance that the United States cannot reciprocally copy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's not wish casting whatever that means. The crux of the argument isn't as much of a capability one as it is an economic one. If China can release open source models like these to displace demand for frontier models so can American companies. It's just that it's not profitable enough for them to do so at this time. I would back you if: 1) The American companies had not run up debts in the $100bn range. 2) If there…
> 1) The American companies had not run up debts in the $100bn range. How are Chinese companies financing their buildouts of AI infrastructure? > 2) If there was an open source business model that could create $100bn companies or pay down $100bn of debt. Companies are formed and consult on Linux for example. Idk where this $100bn number comes from but it seems too low to me anyway. > 3) There was a convincing moat su…
The same way that OpenAI and Anthropic will dig themselves out of the hole; By pawning off the training costs onto taxpaying citizens.
> Well you don't need a moat to be a successful business.
glances at Nvidia
Do you mind repeating that line a little louder?
> How do you know folks aren't taking you for a ride instead?
I do know that I'm being taken for a ride. I pay taxes to this ass-backwards US government, and they beg me to pay $20/month for their tokens in return. I've been using a $3/month GLM-5.2 subscription and have gotten probably 10x more value from it than I ever got buying Claude Code. This American AI nonsense is too expensive for my blood, and too censored for legitimate research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1) The American companies had not run up debts in the $100bn range. How are Chinese companies financing their buildouts of AI infrastructure? > 2) If there was an open source business model that could create $100bn companies or pay down $100bn of debt. Companies are formed and consult on Linux for example. Idk where this $100bn number comes from but it seems too low to me anyway. > 3) There was a convincing moat su…
> How are Chinese companies financing their buildouts of AI infrastructure? The same way that OpenAI and Anthropic will dig themselves out of the hole; By pawning off the training costs onto taxpaying citizens. > Well you don't need a moat to be a successful business. glances at Nvidia Do you mind repeating that line a little louder? > How do you know folks aren't taking you for a ride instead? I do know that I'm bei…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not even close. The west pushes back against a traffic light camera, china has had individual tracking for over a decade.
What you call the west is the US (assuming you mean the flock debacle?). While there is push back against that specific company cameras are in place since a decade. If you’re in the US you already live in a world where there is individual tracking, by corporations (even supermarkets) and 3 letters agencies