6 ms·

The conversation going on in the industry is a bit broader than that. OpenAI's head of strategic futures just said last week that open models are inherently dec

The conversation going on in the industry is a bit broader than that. OpenAI's head of strategic futures just said last week that open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier. You'll notice OpenAI does not appear as a signatory here despite their relationship with Microsoft.

satvikpendem 2mo ago
Well of course OpenAI and Anthropic say those sorts of things, it's what they've always said, particularly Anthropic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the position of the US government. In other words the government seems to be listening to some but not all of the lobbying done by the big two.
- calebkaiser 2mo ago
  The guy who said those things just joined OpenAI in the last month. He was previously a senior policy advisor, specifically on AI, to the current administration in the White House. I don't know that the US government has a unified position on open source AI. But it's not like this isn't a discussion happening among policymakers.
derektank 2mo ago
>open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier Ungovernable makes intuitive sense, but I don’t understand how open weight models could be decelerationist or slow the development of the frontier. Was there an argument for those positions?
- newpavlov 2mo ago
  Open weight models challenge the "winner takes all" hypothesis, which motivates the astronomical valuations and acts as a justification for trains of cash dumped into AI development. In other words, if AI models become a commodity, the "AI leaders" will not be able to burn the cash like they do today, thus resulting in a "slower" (one could say instead "more sustainable") development of AI models.
  - whattheheckheck 2mo ago
    Tough shit welcome to capitalism
  - vatsachak 2mo ago
    Well maybe they should find better training methods or architectures
- calebkaiser 2mo ago
  Here's his original post https://x.com/i/status/2078133895766114412 https://x.com/i/status/2078133895766114412
- wat10000 2mo ago
  It's a copy/paste of the arguments against open source software from decades ago. The argument goes: innovation requires profit motive, and profit motive requires IP rights. Of course, this was soundly disproven in software and I don't see any reason it should be different here.
  - skeledrew 2mo ago
    Chinese providers are actively debunking that argument by innovating on and releasing open weight models.
  - scott_weber 2mo ago
    The difference might be the immense cost of physical infrastructure needed for AI training. People would make open source contributions for free, TSMC, NVIDIA and power companies seems less likely to make free contributions to AI.
jwitthuhn 2mo ago
Surprised to see I partially agree. They are indeed ungovernable and that is the best part.

satvikpendem 2mo ago

Well of course OpenAI and Anthropic say those sorts of things, it's what they've always said, particularly Anthropic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the position of the US government. In other words the government seems to be listening to some but not all of the lobbying done by the big two.

calebkaiser 2mo ago
The guy who said those things just joined OpenAI in the last month. He was previously a senior policy advisor, specifically on AI, to the current administration in the White House. I don't know that the US government has a unified position on open source AI. But it's not like this isn't a discussion happening among policymakers.

derektank 2mo ago

>open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier Ungovernable makes intuitive sense, but I don’t understand how open weight models could be decelerationist or slow the development of the frontier. Was there an argument for those positions?

newpavlov 2mo ago
Open weight models challenge the "winner takes all" hypothesis, which motivates the astronomical valuations and acts as a justification for trains of cash dumped into AI development. In other words, if AI models become a commodity, the "AI leaders" will not be able to burn the cash like they do today, thus resulting in a "slower" (one could say instead "more sustainable") development of AI models.
- whattheheckheck 2mo ago
  Tough shit welcome to capitalism
- vatsachak 2mo ago
  Well maybe they should find better training methods or architectures
calebkaiser 2mo ago
Here's his original post https://x.com/i/status/2078133895766114412 https://x.com/i/status/2078133895766114412
wat10000 2mo ago
It's a copy/paste of the arguments against open source software from decades ago. The argument goes: innovation requires profit motive, and profit motive requires IP rights. Of course, this was soundly disproven in software and I don't see any reason it should be different here.
- skeledrew 2mo ago
  Chinese providers are actively debunking that argument by innovating on and releasing open weight models.
- scott_weber 2mo ago
  The difference might be the immense cost of physical infrastructure needed for AI training. People would make open source contributions for free, TSMC, NVIDIA and power companies seems less likely to make free contributions to AI.

jwitthuhn 2mo ago

Surprised to see I partially agree. They are indeed ungovernable and that is the best part.