>open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier
replyUngovernable 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?
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.
replyIn 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.
Well maybe they should find better training methods or architectures
replyTough shit welcome to capitalism
replyHere's his original post https://x.com/i/status/2078133895766114412
replyIt'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.
replyChinese providers are actively debunking that argument by innovating on and releasing open weight models.
replyWell 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.
replyThe 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.
replyI 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.
Surprised to see I partially agree. They are indeed ungovernable and that is the best part.
reply