• schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Can someone explain to me why I, as an American, should be angry that China is making something better than us that it is also releasing for free to the world? I mean, we still get to use it if we want, and so does everyone else.

    I don’t see why putting more money into the pockets of a few AI billionaires is considered a national priority.

    • NoLemurs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You absolutely shouldn’t be angry!

      The existence of powerful open-weight models is the single thing that’s going to prevent us from descending into the full corporate dystopia everyone’s afraid of.

      It’s going to hit the stock market hard once everyone figures out what’s going on though.

    • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      There is absolutely no reason to be angry. If China develops better AI and releases it freely, Americans benefit just like everyone else. The only people with a reason to panic are billionaires.

  • RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Neat! This stuff should not run in data centers anyway. And it should not be gated and controlled by billionares.

    • v_krishna@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Training these models still requires massive data centers, and using any of them that at all compare to frontier models for inference requires large numbers of GPUs

  • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Silicon Valley spent billions building AI tollbooths while Chinese labs made models people can actually download and run. Then Washington restricted chips, and China got better at doing more with less. It’s almost poetic: America tried to corner the future of AI and accidentally made efficiency China’s competitive advantage.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      It’s worse than that even… frontier models now have guardrails restrictive enough that I can’t use them for legitimate work. And the ones that DO work have token prices at exorbitant rates, and chew through them like there’s no tomorrow.

      Meanwhile, I can download Qwen3 and run it on my own hardware, and it’s about as good as the last generation US model without the annoying guardrails.

      Hmm… which model am I going to choose to use?

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Open-weight is not the point in the AI race so this comparison doesn‘t tell us anything about who‘s leading in whatever metrics they‘re testing right now.

    I wish models had to disclose their training sets so IP holders can sue for damages. Those would get into the trillions no doubt. Hell I wish LLMs never got this much out of hand. But I don‘t understand what they‘re getting at with this or why make it a „China VS the West“ thing.

    • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Open weight AI absolutely matters if the question is who gets to shape the AI ecosystem. A slightly better closed model wins a benchmark: a good open model can be adapted, audited and run without paying a Silicon Valley landlord. And yes, training data transparency should apply to both Chinese and Western labs. That’s not a contradiction: it’s the point. Still: FOSAI » OWAI » ClosedAI

    • Quazatron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Because then Western AI companies can go to the governments, point to China and say: “see how advanced they are? See how they can apply that to the economy and military? You’d better give us money and not try to regulate us.”

      That is the whole story.

      • NoLemurs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        You’d better give us money and not try to regulate us.

        Actually, right now, the western AI companies desperately want regulation.

        An unregulated environment is one where they’re forced to compete on price against the Chinese companies and startups running open-weight models. All signs point to them losing that battle.

        OpenAI/Anthropic’s wish list right now is a bunch of regulation to prevent the use of foreign models, and to require expensive to implement “safety” requirements that make it hard for startups to compete.

        • Quazatron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yes, that’s a different kind of regulation than the one I was thinking about. They do want market/economic regulation (i.e. ban Chinese model use) but not law/justice regulation (our AI made an oopsie, sorry, not our fault).