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

China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

werd.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 978 posts

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#151

Post by joquarky »

albedoa wrote: post #83
ForHackernews wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't ask it to be "balanced", I asked it why governments are more efficient — it's imparting a pro-capitalist American-flavoured spin in response to a prompt that didn't call for it.

You really detracted from your point and killed any hope for a nuanced discussion by begging the question. You could have simply asked the model which system is more efficient.

Why is efficiency the goal? That sounds like a paperclip generator.

Wouldn't human contentment be a more satisfying goal?

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#152

Post by [deleted] »

ForHackernews wrote: post #48
mrngld wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that inaccurate or are you upset data and history don't fit your desire? Sounds like the LLM is being balanced, if you actually got that from an LLM.

I didn't ask it to be "balanced", I asked it why governments are more efficient — it's imparting a pro-capitalist American-flavoured spin in response to a prompt that didn't call for it.

[deleted]

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#153

Post by verdverm »

parineum wrote: post #132
idiotsecant wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your point that startups fail so we should disregard the central thesis that locked down AI will eventually lost to open models?

Not op but that makes perfect sense to me. "People with mostly bad ideas/execution use Chinese models." Is the point being made. If you slice it to some measure of success, is the statement "Successful start-ups/companies use Chinese models." still true?

How does this comparison sound if we use cloud provider?

The Ai is writing code, not executing a startup. The code was never the hard part of startups

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#154

Post by applicative »

TheArcane wrote: post #119
_aavaa_ wrote: post #3

> 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

[flagged]

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#155

Post by SubiculumCode »

orwin wrote: post #88
SubiculumCode wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red pilled? Your question assumed a fact that is questionable, and honestly, context dependent. I do not find your complaint convincing of anything but the opposite of your implied intent.

I'm pretty sure it isn't assumed. My main example has been the same since COVID, as insurance is probably the business you can compare 1-1 the most. Public health insurance in my country, in the last 20 years used 6-9% (depending on the year) of the taxes send to them as administrative overhead, meaning that for each 100 euro that you paid for health insurance, 91-95 are used to pay doctors, hospitals and medication.…

Cherry picked examples don't prove that it isn't context dependent.

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#156

Post by pessimizer »

WarmWash wrote: post #45

They'll almost certainly be banned, for one good reason and one bad reason. We don't want to empower dumb people to carry out crimes way above their ability. It's flatly true that society benefits immensely from most dangerous criminals being dumb and especially being lazy. We're just one "Kid uses free Chinese model to mastermind first ever chemical attack on school" away from society running to slam the "ban" butto…

They'll almost certainly be banned, but to protect our oligarchs. Nobody will be allowed to run unlicensed AI (or OSes), the chips themselves won't allow it.

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#157

Post by jmyeet »

I'm not a fan of Sundar Pichai, particularly given how much he's paid, but the one thing I'll give him credit for is starting the Chrome project at Google. I'm not sure people appreciate just how impactful this was. And it has nothing to do with browsers, really.

Google has a huge team that works on what's called Search Quality. Matt Cutts was the notional figurehead of this for the longest time. Google's goal was to have the first link on a search result be the one you want. In the early days of Google, the way they measured search equality was with a process called "side by sides" where a sampling of search results were compared by actual humans to see which was "better".

Chrome changed all that. It automated the feedback loop. Make a good browser (and, at the time, Chrome had one-process-per-tab when Firefox was freezing with one-thread-per-tab. Make it fast so enough people use it. And you get to measure how good your search results are. Nobody had access to this level of what we'd now call training data.

Part of the value proposition of cloud LLMs is that the AI companies have a comparable feedback loop. They get to see prompts and responses and train accordingly. It's why the ToS gives the companies ownership of this data and the right to use it. That falls apart if people don't have to use a remote LLM. And there's two reasons why that's under threat:

1. Chinese labs have managed to train LLMs at least in part by acting as an intermediary between Chinese users and the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic. There's a whole shadow economy in reselling tokens throough aggregated subscriptions that Anthropic (in particular0 constantly plays whack-a-mole to shut down but it's a losing battle. I think it's this data that is a key factor in the improvement o fChinese models; and

2. Within 2-3 years we will be seeing a rapid rise in local LLM usage by what are now large users of these platforms as the hardware becomes increasingly accessible. That's going to close off this feedback loop.

On top of all this, the Chinese government has decided that no company should be allowed to "win" AI, particularly a foreign company. It's an issue of national security. This was obvious from at least the very first DeepSeek release. I firmly believe the models are going to get commoditized and that's going to be a huge problem for OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX.

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#158

Post by thomaslord »

nonethewiser wrote: post #101
orwin wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure it isn't assumed. My main example has been the same since COVID, as insurance is probably the business you can compare 1-1 the most. Public health insurance in my country, in the last 20 years used 6-9% (depending on the year) of the taxes send to them as administrative overhead, meaning that for each 100 euro that you paid for health insurance, 91-95 are used to pay doctors, hospitals and medication.…

Is your country’s pharmaceutical companies pushing the entire industry forward?

This doesn't seem to be relevant to the comment you replied to. They didn't mention anything about paying less to pharmaceutical companies, they argued that the administrative overhead of providing the insurance itself is lower.

As I read it, your argument seems to be that American healthcare must be more expensive than similar-quality healthcare elsewhere because we're paying higher pharmaceutical prices to fund research. If we accept that premise, shouldn't that mean that: 1. The "medicine" portion of costs increases, causing the total cost to increase 2. Administrative effort, and therefore absolute cost, remains the same (we're paying X% more for drugs, not thinking X% harder about whether a given drug is needed by a given patient) 3. Administrative overhead as a percentage of total cost should be lower given a similar efficiency level, because higher drug prices inflated the divisor (total cost) while having no effect on the dividend (administrative costs)

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#159

Post by anvuong »

postalcoder wrote: post #47

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…

2-3 years ago MAIR was on a roll with Llama 1 2 3, Zuck was on his rehab tour to be a cool guy, and Meta as a whole was pumping record numbers after record numbers. I can't believe how that falters so quickly after the addition of Alexdandr Wang.

Re: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning

#160

Post by jklinger410 »

bigyabai wrote: post #122
postalcoder wrote: post #47

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…

> considering that Llama, the mother of all open-weight models, has led to anything but success for Meta. 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…

> 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.

They release the base model as open source, everyone uses it. They make a paid version, no one uses it.

They make no money from the open source version, they get no social credit from it. Where is the benefit to having an open source model?

Post reply on HN