201–210 of 965 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m 100% certain that China won’t be sending any goons to my front door.
This is true, but there is another foreign country that can send people to your door. What's to stop China from eventually buying that type of influence over our govt officials?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever worked with a non-programmer and helped them setup their AI workflows? You install MCP connectors, specific skills, work around model/harness quirks, set security boundaries etc. It's a lot of work, and most people will never want to change it once they have it working.
Skills are quite interoperable, and you can easily ask Codex / Claude to help you with switching the MCP connectors or any other things specific to your previous workflow. It's been quite low friction in my experience.
They will have people who don't understand the distinction between visiting Claude.ai and downloading Claude Cowork.
They type the words "setup MCP" into Claude.ai and expect it to automate Excel on their machine.
There's a pretty big gap between the things we talk about here, and where the world is at.
People who claim that the Chinese open weight models have some type of manifest advantage don't realize that the close weight models have a huge advantage as well: the researchers from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Meta are not dumb, they can read the white papers written by DeepSeek, Moonshot, etc, and they can inspect all those architectures and they can pick and choose the best tricks there are out there, and of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OpenAI shouldn't be allowed to decide what types of customers it wants and doesn't want? Correct. It shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Err.. I would like preserve my own right to decide who I'll do business with.
According to openAI's own @deanwball: Even OpenAI isn't buying this distillation talk: https://xcancel.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412#m
> open models are inherently decelerationist I’m struggling to understand this perspective. Is he using the words accelerationist/decelerationist in a sense other than the obvious one? EDIT: I searched his twitter history and discovered that his argument is basically “if you drive down costs, then OpenAI will have less money to invest in development, slowing down the overall rate of AI progress.” IMO this take betray…
Every company wants that!
This is of course a baseless assumption. Let's say China created GPT 3.5. Then I can guarantee you that Ben would say "Western frontier labs are at a disadvantage when gathering data, because they have to follow the terms of service of Western media, and Western copyright law". Which we now know wasn't true.
And sure, some will say "but Anthropic can more easily block this as it's a single point of failure". But it's doable to overcome this. Without being "state backed".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for open models, but people seem to misunderstand what they are. They aren't the same thing as open source code! > open weights, open code and open data Even if you have all these things you still can't replicate a model because of randomness. You can backdoor a model with less than 1000 examples and it is impossible to detect.
You don't want to replicate the exact model, you want to build a system of similar capabilities.
You can take the code for Kimi K3 now, take the training framework from Prime and the data from Olmo, spend some money on RL environments and some more money (!) on GPU training and end up with a system of similar capabilities.
But that's completely different to being able to audit Kimi K3. Even if you had the exact code, data and training environments it is impossible to verify that the model you have came from that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion, the big issue with that argument is that advances in interpretability research and steering conceivably could, and probably will, render moot that (as of now, purely hypothetical) risk of subtle sabotage for open-weight models... but not for closed models.
It’s not hypothetical. Magic strings are a known and implemented feature for standard model interaction. Nearly impossible to detect unless you know where to look with current technology.
It's when the vendors and/or governments in charge of Model A decide that I'm not allowed to do that, that I have a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you or someone please explain several of the claims made in this tweet? "I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks" what risks? I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). Confused what this means Open-weight models are inherently dec…
>Can someone in the know please use plain layman's terms to explain what this tweet is about? The Silicon Valley people like this openai guy, high on their own supply, are convinced they are building some machine god that will either bring about the end of the human race or utopia, they therefore cannot understand why the Chinese (or any other normal person on earth) are not afraid of chatbots and have other things o…