Live data from Hacker News

Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

politico.com

971–980 of 983 posts

Re: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

#971

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying USA is somehow a good example for environmental issues and human rights? Read the news in the past years?

Did you read the links I attached? Are you saying China is better in human rights? Read the news in the past few years?

>Are you saying China is better in human rights

Sadly, that's debatable these days.

But what are you trying to argue here? "America doesn't abuse it's workers as much so it's more ethical to buy american EVs that don't exist!"? We're objectively behind because so many EV lines were paused/cancelled last year

>Read the news in the past few years?

Yeah, I recommend doing that. We're going to have encyclopedia's dedicated to what's happening in the US in these last few years(and coming next few years).

Re: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

#972
post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The keyword in your sentence is "access". The rest of the world would have cheap access to AI, but no ownership of anything at the frontier. So... just use distillation and create their own frontier models? I don't see the problem here. If the goal is to hold sovereign ownership over your own SOTA models, China has already shown that any nation could achieve that pretty easily if they need to. And that's ignoring t…

Linux is not a relevant comparison, because the fundamental capabilities of an OS do not grow exponentially with time or investment. If building full sovereign ownership of the production chain for frontier-level AI were so easy, there wouldn't only be two countries on the entire planet that have that right now. If distillation worked in the way you seem to imagine it does, nearly every country in the world would hav…

>because the fundamental capabilities of an OS do not grow exponentially with time or investment.

I strongly disagree. Especially in times where Microsoft is actively trying to ingrate OS into Windows itself. the OS clearly isn't just a schema for apps and a task scheduler anymore.

>If building full sovereign ownership of the production chain for frontier-level AI were so easy, there wouldn't only be two countries on the entire planet that have that right now.

The rest of the world is still cooling from COVID, so not exactly a great time for any other country to spend a trillion dollars on speculative technology.

Regardless, this is the wrong lens. The two countries aren't avoiding it because it's hard, they avoid it because it gives less power and money to them.

Re: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

#974
post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux is not a relevant comparison, because the fundamental capabilities of an OS do not grow exponentially with time or investment. If building full sovereign ownership of the production chain for frontier-level AI were so easy, there wouldn't only be two countries on the entire planet that have that right now. If distillation worked in the way you seem to imagine it does, nearly every country in the world would hav…

>because the fundamental capabilities of an OS do not grow exponentially with time or investment. I strongly disagree. Especially in times where Microsoft is actively trying to ingrate OS into Windows itself. the OS clearly isn't just a schema for apps and a task scheduler anymore. >If building full sovereign ownership of the production chain for frontier-level AI were so easy, there wouldn't only be two countries on…

You can disagree, but simply stating disagreement isn't substantive. Linux can be enormously important while also not being subject to exponential value creation through improvements to itself.

Re: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

#975
post #974

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because the fundamental capabilities of an OS do not grow exponentially with time or investment. I strongly disagree. Especially in times where Microsoft is actively trying to ingrate OS into Windows itself. the OS clearly isn't just a schema for apps and a task scheduler anymore. >If building full sovereign ownership of the production chain for frontier-level AI were so easy, there wouldn't only be two countries on…

You can disagree, but simply stating disagreement isn't substantive. Linux can be enormously important while also not being subject to exponential value creation through improvements to itself.

>but simply stating disagreement isn't substantive.

I gave an example. And I was thinking of genuine features and responsibilities for a competitive OS, not "value creation" (I don't base my OS usage on how much shareholder value it generates). The capabilities of an OS in 1996 and 2026 are massively different.

Re: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

#976
post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux is not a relevant comparison, because the fundamental capabilities of an OS do not grow exponentially with time or investment. If building full sovereign ownership of the production chain for frontier-level AI were so easy, there wouldn't only be two countries on the entire planet that have that right now. If distillation worked in the way you seem to imagine it does, nearly every country in the world would hav…

They would if they cared to invest in it. That they've not is a policy and economic choice (possibly because they don't have the same sense of panicked urgency I see among a lot of folks around here), not evidence of some insurmountable barrier to entry. You also jumped to a conclusion that I don't think is self-evident: that owning the production chain matters. Assuming open weight models continue to advance, who ca…

It's well understood at this point that China's results are simply not purely the result of distillation. They're the result of significant investment with a willingness not to make a profit any time soon. That's why distillation is not enough. Again, if it were that easy, then it would in fact be that easy. And all the evidence across the world clearly illustrates it's not. Even with distillation, it's incredibly expensive building a fully sovereign domestic frontier AI stack.

> Assuming open weight models continue to advance, who cares?

There's no reason to assume they will advance as fast as closed models. If the world is reduced to a single fully autonomous producer of true frontier intelligence (China), and everyone else is using open models produced from or distilled from the results of China, then two categories of AI inevitably emerge: open models and frontier closed models, the latter of which are known and controlled only by their sole producer. Given that progress is exponential, once competition is eliminated, one can reasonably expect an exponential gap in technology capability to emerge between China and the rest of the world. That is not a side effect but the entire point. It's the very goal being engineered right now.

> And if they close up, then fine, do what China did and build up a domestic industry and distill as a way to get a jumpstart.

"build up a domestic industry" will be about as easy as reshoring frontier manufacturing capability. That is to say, there's a threshold of "no return" after which it won't be possible at all without extremely painful re-architecting of the entire country's economic system to force a massive domestic development that said system no longer naturally incentivizes.

Re: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

#977
post #974

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can disagree, but simply stating disagreement isn't substantive. Linux can be enormously important while also not being subject to exponential value creation through improvements to itself.

>but simply stating disagreement isn't substantive. I gave an example. And I was thinking of genuine features and responsibilities for a competitive OS, not "value creation" (I don't base my OS usage on how much shareholder value it generates). The capabilities of an OS in 1996 and 2026 are massively different.

You gave an example of Linux having value, which is not contested and not relevant. You did not give any examples showing the existence of an exponential here. Moreover, the value being discussed is long-term geopolitical leverage resulting from a country's sovereign technology capability that remains unperturbed under heavily adversarial conditions, not shareholder value. In fact, it is a direct corollary of my claims that the two concepts of value are not equivalent, and that is precisely the trap being set and the gap being exploited.

Re: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

#978
post #977

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but simply stating disagreement isn't substantive. I gave an example. And I was thinking of genuine features and responsibilities for a competitive OS, not "value creation" (I don't base my OS usage on how much shareholder value it generates). The capabilities of an OS in 1996 and 2026 are massively different.

You gave an example of Linux having value, which is not contested and not relevant. You did not give any examples showing the existence of an exponential here. Moreover, the value being discussed is long-term geopolitical leverage resulting from a country's sovereign technology capability that remains unperturbed under heavily adversarial conditions, not shareholder value. In fact, it is a direct corollary of my clai…

>long-term geopolitical leverage resulting from a country's sovereign technology capability

Do I really need to explain in this community how Linux went from some underground freeware to the most used OS in the world? How is that not "sovereign technology capability".

If a machine uses software in any way shape or form, it's about 70% likely Linux powers it. Doesn't matter what industry or topic it is. America only remained a superpower this long because it was an early adopter of modern compute and shaped much of its GDP around software powering every industry.

The only thing not sovereign about it is that many technologies are technically holed up in private companies, that the US government contracts. But I don't know how you can say the growth hasn't been exponential.

I feel we're nitpicking over minutae at this point so I'll cut it off here.

Re: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

#979
post #977

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You gave an example of Linux having value, which is not contested and not relevant. You did not give any examples showing the existence of an exponential here. Moreover, the value being discussed is long-term geopolitical leverage resulting from a country's sovereign technology capability that remains unperturbed under heavily adversarial conditions, not shareholder value. In fact, it is a direct corollary of my clai…

>long-term geopolitical leverage resulting from a country's sovereign technology capability Do I really need to explain in this community how Linux went from some underground freeware to the most used OS in the world? How is that not "sovereign technology capability". If a machine uses software in any way shape or form, it's about 70% likely Linux powers it. Doesn't matter what industry or topic it is. America only r…

You are free to bow out. However, we are decidedly not nitpicking over minutiae. I don't think you have understood this thread, and that's leading you to make very confident assertions that are individually correct but just not relevant.

There's a kernel of a good idea in what you just wrote: open infrastructure can be part of a nation's sovereign technology stack. That's true, and Linux is indeed an example of it. But that has little to do with anything I claimed.

Linux is fundamentally not relevant because investing more in it does not confer exponentially increasing geopolitical leverage to a single nation uniquely above all others. Next-generation frontier AI, however, appears to have that property: if possessed by one nation, that sovereign production capability appears so far to confer exponentially increasing international leverage.

Re: Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI

#980

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot-on and really well written post highlighting the challenges here. Really it just comes down to the US and surrounding sycophants and China. There just isn't any other game in town. For the US to just, well, give up on AI development would be civilizational suicide. I wouldn't put it past us though, most Americans in particular are so weak minded they only care about cheapest possible product. It's interesting to…

We can see the same situation play out with manufacturing capability. The USA has recognised that it needs more manufacturing capability. But rather than just build that capability (which is what the Chinese state-planned economy would do, and did) it tries to incentivise private companies to build it. Which didn't work because the companies building domestic manufacturing face competition from Chinese imports. The i…

> We can see the same situation play out with manufacturing capability.

I don't think manufacturing is a great analogy and we should be careful to try and compare these two very closely. But the closest comparison would be iPhone versus Android. Many more people use Android, and the phones are a lot cheaper and can be produced in mass, but the iPhone is the dominant phone and captures much more market share.

> There has to be a lot of profit for them to do that.

Sure... but if China is just subsidizing AI companies to copy/distill/whatever American models it's fair for the US (as it would be for manufacturing) to work to block those models. But also you have to remember that the US is in the lead, so while there isn't profit that I'm aware of to be had now, if the Chinese caught up then presumably there would be some level of profit. There's good and bad here though too because, well, as you can see in China's over-built housing market the government makes a lot of bad assumptions and mistakes and is subject to forces that can cause less than desirable outcomes. It goes both ways a bit.

Post reply on HN