Comment on: China’s open-weights AI strategy is winning
I don't think this is necessarily going to prove to be true.I often see the sentiment: "the Chinese strategy only makes sense in the context of undercutting American labs' profit margins".If, for example, you are a company with a near-monopoly on "serving video content", and you feel reasonably confident about retaining a decent slice of the serving-video-content market (Google in the west is an example, Tencent in the east), then training video models on your dataset - and releasing them freely - makes an awful lot of sense.Free tools to create with mean more video content. In this hypothetic
Comment on: Our position on open-weights models
> Dario doesn’t realize that by not offering self-hosting of closed-weight models and fine-tuning, alongside overly strict refusals for legitimate needs, he ceded this corner of the market which grew into a flourishing Chinese open-weight model ecosystem.As I read more of his unhinged posts and some of the more ridiculous claims from anthropic, it's become clear to me that Dario thinks he can leverage American hegemony to regulate his company into a monopoly.He has an ethics vaguely influenced by effective altruism, and he appears to think that his ethical framework entitles him to make decisi
Comment on: Our position on open-weights models
> How this would actually be achieved is unclear though. Dario is at least proposing a solution a solutionHow it would be achieved is a pretty important bit! One which Dario is not proposing any concrete solution for other thanks hand waves at some gov safety committee.Would this restrict downloads of an open model, or publishing?Say we ban domestic hosting un-approved open models. How does Dario propose to ban downloads from abroad? You can’t tell what an encrypted payload contains, do we need to restrict encryption?