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

The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

leoveanu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 221 posts

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#51

Post by goatlover »

blfr wrote: post #30
joe_mamba wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most American companies (regulated ones, definitely) can't dare to touch any Chinese models, though they knew that it makes perfect economic sense. Weird, considering they had no issues shipping manufacturing and supply chains to China when that made economic sense.

Yes, there was a whole idea about civilizing and pacifying the world through economic cooperation that would foster middle class in countries across the world that would then in turn make them democratize and become peaceful trade partners. It didn't quite work out so now people are looking for other strategies.

And if that fails, the US can always use economic and military pressure to get what it wants.

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#52

Post by computerex »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #31
mynameismon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not Chinese models hosted on American hardware?

The reality is that they're a hell of a lot less cheap on American hardware than on Chinese hardware. At the point you are running Chinese models on US hardware, "Why not nano or haiku" becomes the next relevant question.

Not true. Togetherai, deepinfra, fireworks AI offer a wide range of models like gpt oss that are very capable and far cheaper than the models from big 3.

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#53

Post by newaccountman2 »

zkmon wrote: post #9

Most American companies (regulated ones, definitely) can't dare to touch any Chinese models, though they knew that it makes perfect economic sense. Until the taboo prevails, the cartel get's their flood of profit. That's a cartel protected by regulations.

I think unless one is operating in a highly regulated industry, wanting to avoid "sending data to China" is a bit paranoid. For code specifically, most of it is not interesting anyways.

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#54

Post by MaKey »

xyzal wrote: post #8
swiftcoder wrote: post #4

> and will judge, like any sane person, that US frontier models have stopped earning their multiplier I think that this is on the money, although I'd place the bar even lower - DeepSeek v4 Flash is sufficient for basically all day-to-day coding tasks. You might want something beefier for a complicated reverse-engineering project, but it will competently one-shot a decently complicated app or API - and a $10/month Ope…

I'll root for DeepSeek v4 Flash as well. It surprised me just how "good enough" it is for most of my needs, and also dirt cheap. Everyone should try it at least once.

+1, it's good enough for what I need to do as a DevOps engineer.

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#55

Post by boelboel »

twolf910616 wrote: post #34

How many words did I read in this article before I realized it wasn't written by AI? 10? 20? A paragraph or two? It's quite strange that it's very easy to detect AI in writing.

"I am also an engineer, which means I have a healthy respect for the practical. All this made me a fine skeptic ..." is what did it for me.

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#56

Post by rjsw »

KellyCriterion wrote: post #37

Question that I do not understand: How should a local-run Chinese Model "phone home" if someone runs it locally on the hardware? I think Im missing some understanding here?

I think the fear is that it might insert some "phone home" routine into the source code that it generates.

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#57

Post by sandworm101 »

tcp_handshaker wrote: post #29
Levitz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can legally act against one, not against the other. Not exactly a hard question.

Looking forward to the outcome of those legal processes againt the CEOs, that sit behind Trump at the inauguration. After they stole all the knowledge in the world to train their models. And the current administration is drunk on SpaceX pre IPO shares...how did they get them? "Trump Officials Held Millions of Dollars of SpaceX Ahead of IPO" - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/texas-brief/trump-officials-he...

Given how little voting power these "shares" have (they are effectively SpaceX trading cards/NFTs) perhaps they were simply printed on SpaceX letterhead? If Musk says a person has "shares" who at spacex is in a position to disagree?

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#58

Post by Dylan16807 »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #49
tcp_handshaker wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I suspect the recent space X S&P decision had something to do with public perception.

The decision was to do nothing, though. That's not much precedent for going out and punishing lawbreakers.

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#59

Post by bix6 »

blfr wrote: post #24
scotty79 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"China bad!" is a moral statement. Whetever the reasons might have been that it was formed.

China is bad and there's a moral argument there. But the reason you want to be careful with sending IP to China is quite pragmatic: they're willing and able to use it while competing with you. Is Alibaba interested in copying your TUI RSS reader though? Probably not.

And US companies aren’t going to compete against you?

Re: The OnlyFans Economy of American AI

#60

Post by zozbot234 »

falcor84 wrote: post #40
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the Chinese models are open weights, so if you are concerned about them "phoning home", then anyone can just self-host and run them themself, or use via a US provider such as OpenRouter.

There's a higher-order concern here that I'm paranoid enough to voice: that if used as a coding agent, an AI model affiliated with a country's government might try to make my software susceptible to attacks by that government's intelligence forces. And note that I'm not singling out China here.

> that if used as a coding agent, an AI model affiliated with a country's government might try to make my software susceptible to attacks by that government's intelligence forces.

Note that if such a trigger were to exist, the behavior has to be completely reproducible by definition, e.g. when put into the right setting with the right input context, the model starts behaving maliciously with at least some well-defined probability. I don't think any such incident has ever been described, it's a purely theoretical concern.

Post reply on HN