> it seems their argument is that without an environment that rewards the development of the next frontier model the tech might not evolve as fast.
replyThis is precisely what the people worried about AI risk and job displacement want, so they should be strongly in favor of open weights then, right?
> thus capping how far the tech could reach
replyI 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.
Yeah, I agree with this take. When there's less capital floating around it will make these labs prioritize shrinking the models so less hardware (or older hardware) is needed to run a model with the same or similar capabilities. They'll have to do that simply because the cost of running the models will become more important.
replyIt also might end up pushing us towards LLM ASICs assuming the model progress slows significantly.
> There’s still gonna be demand for stronger models.
replypotential issue is those will be Chinese models if they win, which could be national security matter.