capevace

You‘re reading it wrong.

I’m saying it doesn’t matter wether they did or not, because now they clearly have models which can compete.

> thus capping how far the tech could reach

I just don’t buy it. There’s still gonna be demand for stronger models. Sure growth will be slower, but this might even drive a push for more cost efficient training / inference and/or new architectures if money is harder to come by.

> In most US-adjacent countries like India, anyone that sells to US companies I see avoiding chinese model providers for the same reason

But the argument isn’t about model providers tho right (providing inference)? Using Chinese providers is already a privacy problem if user data is involved, so I don’t know if anything would change here.

What you’re suggesting is that the policy would stop big co‘s from running their own inference completely, no? Or only the foreign open source models?

> don't bother analysing it technically

I feel you have to, because where’s the line? Is running GPT-OSS myself fine (if I were a big company)? Mistral models? Or are none of them ok? What about if I am getting inference from a small startup, which is running OSS models for me? Or is only OAI/Anthropic ok?

No I’m not confusing them. I am very aware it’s mainly policy for a minority of people. But this minority drives the markets.

This administration has done a lot for that minority already so I don’t think anyone would be too surprised? In this case they can even claim to protect the greater economy, a crash of which does impact the majority.

„US good, China bad“ has been a long term talking point by Trump too and this would neatly fit into that to be consumed by his base

> With models 10000x more powerful, we would need to be extremely conservative

I agree, I even think we’re already there if yesterdays OpenAI/HuggingFace story is legit.

We need to start building these agent systems in a way so that it won’t matter if a model is compromised. Malicious models is one way, but prompt injection is also still an unsolved problem.

And if you solve that, then a malicious model is also no longer a threat. Data exfiltration maybe, but IMO US labs are probably also doing that for training, even if saying otherwise (of course I have no evidence of that, but the temptation must be insane)

> Do you know what happens if that goes up in flames

I think in capitalism thats called a market correction?

> Do you understand how much money is tied up in the industry?

If the free market „virtue signaling“ no longer matters, then they could’ve also put a stop-gap on investment volume to protect the economy against over-reliance?

Or how about go full plan-economy and just dictate price per token until investors get their money back?

I’m joking around but of course I understand whats tied up in this. I just don’t see how banning open source models is helping any of that in the long run.

> And of course they cant say that

That’s what I don’t get tho, I think in today’s world they totally could?

„We need to protect US investments as our entire economy depends on this market sector“ seems like something that would be soothing to me as an investor?

It’s not like the big money givers can’t see that china is close, it’s been the news multiple times already. But taking active policy steps to protect against that should boost market confidence, no?

Instead we get alibi arguments to accomplish the same thing in the end?

So some kind of „sleeper agent“ model?

Seems a bit far fetched, given that I’ve never seen any PoC/research on this topic. Got any pointers?

To be fair the fix to this seems to be that American labs would need to adjust to the new „fair market price“ then, right? Subsidy-backed competition is still legitimate competition in capitalism (e.g. Uber).

And you could still ban specific, known malicious models/labs instead of blanket open-source bans. What about Mistral models, for example.

But isn‘t the whole argument of „winner takes all“ already dead, if china is such a big threat that the US labs need import controls?

Distilling or not, they are clearly close enough to the frontier, that the supposed „free market“ country needs market controls. That may work for US markets. But not the rest of the world.

Idea: petrodollar policy becomes „tokendollar“, enforced by US military dominance. If you force me to pay altman at gunpoint, then maybe ill stop using kimi

I‘m not even sure what the argument for banning Chinese models/open weights even is supposed to be?

1. if it’s to stop hackers doing hacking things with „uncontrollable models“ then, well… they’re already doing something illegal to begin with, why would they care about breaking another law running these models?

2. if it’s to stop foreign actors, then that ban would not apply to them anyway

3. it’s not stopping distillation either, Chinese labs are already banned from using US frontier models and look at how good that is working

I don’t get it. Am I missing something? The only thing a ban would do is protect the American market from further downward price pressure on inference, protecting VC investors in the short term. But thats also an admittance that the American labs can’t compete on merit anymore, and should by itself also limit the viability of the idea that all those VC billions will ever make a return? In any case this would be something benefitting only a very few for a short time (labs + investors).

Someone please enlighten me what the actual argument here is, cause I can’t see it.

has dario (or sam tbh) ever been thoroughly asked about the hypocrisy of them claiming distillation to be „theft“ vs. them training on the copyright of others?

I’ve only seen him talk about one of those topics, but never together.

I just can’t see how you can talk yourself out of that hypocrisy, if BS answers are properly followed up on (journalism!)