Windows laptops suck ass compared to an MBP. Windows desktops are pretty nice, you just need to do a lot of first time setup to remove all of the cruft and make sure you have a local user account etc. But for a typical dev building a desktop every 5 years or so that isn't a big deal.
if the strait actually reopens and Iran actually ships the enriched uranium out of the country this is a reasonable outcome imo. My concern centers on the fact that neither of these two outcomes are guaranteed by a long shot at this point.
Is it a coincidence that both MiniMax and Z.ai are releasing frontier open weights models right as the USG is trying to impose a cap on model capability offered to the public?
I think Z.ai rushed a bit for release, for example GLM 5.2 is only available under the coding plan right now and they didn't do a big write up. Not even some charts and graphs about its performance!
This is around when people were predicting a new GLM to come out, so a couple corners clipped in order to catch the moment. I'm using it right now and it seems decent, but I haven't done heavy work with it yet. The expanded context window is great.
I think it's a possibility, because labs trying to one-up each other is a fairly common phenomenon at this point. Previous Opus releases were immediately followed by GPT releases, for example. At some point the timing stops being a mere coincidence.
I don’t think we will know. On the one hand, labs hold back until they have something competitive enough to release. So if Fable isn’t around, it removes that pressure. On the other hand, the Chinese labs have been moving fast anyways and are obviously behind, so it’s not any more of a problem to release a model that isn’t the very best.
No, Dario became too tiresome and annoying that someone had to do something. Personally I hope they ban Opus too. It will only provide more support for open models development.
Compare Dario horror posts with this from GLM release:
“ Intelligence should be open, accessible, and ready to build with, empowering every developer, everywhere.”
I'm hardly a fanboy of Anthropic or any of the AI companies, but Ant aren't objectively in a different league of tech bro "tiresome and annoying" than OAI, Google, FB, MSFT, etc. Yet they are being targeted just because of the TOU / EULA they set on usage of their product restricting use for lethal combat planning and mass surveillance.
Set aside whether you agree with that TOU / EULA. We can all decide whether the price and terms any product is available for are acceptable to us. When you create a product, you get to decide the price and terms you want to offer it under. The right to be secure in your person and property is part of the constitution. And Anthropic's models are their property. But the US Government is now extorting a private corporation to force them to let the DoW use the product for lethal combat planning and mass surveillance - against their wishes. That's wrong.
In this case, I don't fully agree with the policies of the company or care for some of the management, but that doesn't change that this is bullshit and unconstitutional.
You can’t ignore their continuous PR on banning open models and regulating everything AI. With Fable we also see how they want it to work: store the data indefinitely (30 days or more) and put restrictions on everything “dangerous” (I.e AI, IT security, biology physics ). I am pretty sure they would want to give specific access on different companies/entities and on differential pricing(I.e use regulatory to inflate their prices)
We’ve also seen how bad that works in practice(I.e making the AI useless for a lot of stuff including programming and Sysadmin ).
It would be okay if they just do their own thing but this Dario guy wants to enforce that enshitification of the whole industry. And that’s not OK because they have money now, power and influence.
I hope the gov will put breaks on Anthropic and regulate them just the way they wanted. The next best thing would be to ask them put restrictions on Opus as they did on Fable
No, not really. This has been telegraphed for a long time by everyone involved. HN denizens have been unashamedly anti-ai for years now, so what makes sense is the not knowing part of this audience. Chinese models are also not frontier models.
I still find it baffling how the idea that HN is "unashamedly anti-ai" gets repeated.
Every single model release gets submitted within minutes of an announcement and frequently break 1000+ points within an hour or two. Blog posts about vibe coding or the current flavor of harness/workflow/tool are constantly making the front page. Karpathy's latest writing/presentations or "Learn how LLMs work using X" are perennial front page content.
There were moments in 2023/2024 where all but a handful of posts on the front page were about AI (and not the Reddit r/popular "residents worried about infrasound and EM radiation near new datacenter" variety).
For example, the responses to this very recent post were overwhelmingly praising Gen AI's capabilities:
Ask HN: What was your "oh shit" moment with GenAI?
There are counter examples of course but just because HN isn't exclusively AI hype at all times doesn't mean it's "unashamedly anti-AI".
I honestly can't think of any single topic other than the Snowden leaks in 2013/2014 that even comes close to dominating HN discussion like LLMs/GenAI from 2022 to present.
data centers with evap cooling use a lot of water and in some places its taking away from residents. thats a fact not a conspiracy. closed loop systems exist and its possible to make them mandatory by law or city ordinance, but if they did that the company running the data center would make a little less money so they act like pumping out water is the only way. its the same with carbon emissions and making them build solar panels.
I think that the events of this evening (really of this past week) are almost unprecedented in the history of tech. Sometimes a clear and concise message is more important than nuanced analysis.
The main reason the Chinese labs are releasing models as open weights is because they don't have the compute necessary to provide all of the inference. For the US frontier models something like 80-90% of the lifetime compute required for the model is inference rather than training. China wants to shepherd as much of their limited compute as possible towards training to keep up in the race.
I think the main reason is to minimize the market for closed-source models from US companies.
China knows that doing what Anthropic/OpenAI/Google/... are doing is impossible for them. No one outside of China in any sane condition will send their data to compute farms IN CHINA like people currently do with US-based frontier models. Even if they could muster the inference power.
Hence they do the second-best thing possible to attack the dominance of the US-based corporations: reduce their moat by open-sourcing models that are not fully equal, but practically useful and good enough for easily 90% of typical tasks people use agents for in their daily lives. But way cheaper to run.
As long as this arms race in AI continues, China as "number two" will have some incentive to continue open-sourcing models. But of course the US government might force a change if they continue to enforce limited public access to new frontier models - there is no market to minimize if a model is not allowed to be publicly available.
But at work the calculus is entirely different. There is already lots of exposure to US companies (guess where our emails and tickets life), so the increase in espionage risk from adding another American company is small. Not zero, and trust towards AI companies is limited. But adding the first Chinese company to send data to would be a major risk. One nobody would sign off on, given the general reputation of the Chinese economy for widespread espionage, disregard for copyright and producing copies of successful products using insider information
Not sure why anyone in the EU thinks the US is not a significant espionage risk. Adding any major US supplier would have been a significant espionage risk until really recently.
Before the EU cleaned up Europe's act pretty considerably on corruption, US companies used corporate but also state-level espionage actors to level the playing field against a culture of bribes and they were fairly open about it. They absolutely needed to do it, because of the potential penalties back home if they engaged in bribery abroad.
The tables have turned, now. The EU runs much more cleanly than decisionmaking in DC, which is clearly corrupted and lubricated with cash and opportunities for failsons and faildaughters; it has accelerated radically quite recently but it was heading that way from the first Bush era.
But I'd bet the corporate-state merger of industrial espionage is in full flow.
This would require active participation by people inside Anthropic and OpenAI. Given how generally ideological the people working in these companies are, I'd be willing to bet that we would already be reading Snowden-style leaks if it were true.
I have zero expectation that a similar culture exists inside Chinese companies. If you think these corporate and national cultures are the same, you need to adjust your priors.
> This would require active participation by people inside Anthropic and OpenAI.
Not necessarily of the companies themselves, though; just embedded people at the right hiring level.
> Given how generally ideological the people working in these companies are
History has many examples of truly surprising spies, over the long term. Including in highly ideological environments such as animal rights and eco-campaigning groups. The embedded police spying scandals in the UK make this clear.
It is naïve to think that there are no CIA or NSA employees in some functional role at these two businesses, just as it is naïve to think that they don't have intelligence industry contacts playing them because they are naïve. You only have to look at how the NSA weakened open cryptography to see that two companies staffed by young, absurdly rich people barely out of college with wobbly moral e/acc compasses might be getting played by homegrown spooks.
> I have zero expectation that a similar culture exists inside Chinese companies. If you think these corporate and national cultures are the same, you need to adjust your priors.
I suggested absolutely nothing of the sort — I flatly was not talking about China at all.
FWIW it cuts both ways: in the dim and distant past of the early dot-com era, I remember encountering someone who wafted inexplicably between US and UK multinational companies who I thought was possibly British intelligence. An odd duck for sure.
> given the general reputation of the Chinese economy for widespread espionage, disregard for copyright and producing copies of successful products using insider information
Quite funny because if you use that phrase verbatim except swapping China with the US it could actually fit.
Good governments try to do things that are in the interest of their population, and yes it could mean opposite interests to your/someone else governments.
No reason to blame US, Israel, China, Russia, etc. They just defend their piece of cake.
Anthropic and OpenAI are not just "another American company", their entire business (and industry) was created based on stealing data and using it for profit. You make this point about "another company" so casually that you'd think you added a SaaS bill for generating thumbnails or whatever. The exact same point you make about China can be made much more confidently and with stronger evidence for the entire modern LLM lab industry.
Again I have to echo the previous poster's point: Most people outside of the US really do not see the US as some much better alternative than China. If anything, in the specific area of LLMs, China are the ones doing work benefitting the everyman whereas almost everything the US labs do does not.
That's why I added "Not zero, and trust towards AI companies is limited". Reaching the decision that adding one single US-based LLM provider had more benefits than risks took months. And we were selective about who that would be (hint: not OpenAI). And I know companies who are not willing to go that step, using open-weight models on their own infra instead. But outsourcing inference to China was never even a serious suggestion. The notion is absurd to us
That said, I imagine e.g. South Americans thinking very differently on this front
China indeed has a general reputation for widespread espionage, so any Chinese company wanting to expand into the European market has to prove it isn't spying on its potential customers. US companies have traditionally been seen as friendly, so their platforms are essentially built around "trust me bro" guarantees.
In a world where both China and the US are now seen as hostile-by-default, this might actually leave some Chinese companies with an advantage in their ability to demonstrate trustworthiness.
The blurring of US state and corporate espionage in the EU is the stuff of legend. They have always spied, and you can easily make the case that in late 1980s/early 1990s Europe they had good reason to, because European businesses were corrupt.
Totally agree, though it is an unpopular opinion here.
It’s the same paradox as people claiming: “we are European, our data is safer in Europe” when actually your privacy is higher when your data is stored in China (or Russia) you are safer because it is out of reach from your local government.
The only thing I dislike, and that’s no matter the service, is that my data or information usage is shared with third-party.
For example, Anthropic conveniently forgets to mention Datadog has tons and tons of information about Claude users, or that your data transits through machines they don’t operate.
Safety has more than one definition. Being able to sue the company in small claims court when it threatens to delete your account is also part of that, and so is being able to pay for the service when Russian companies are once again put on a sanctions list.
China wants everyday people data because some of those people will get power one day, and China wants to be able to leverage knowledge of you, perhaps even "deep dark secret" data, if they need to.
Israel already does this through Epstein information from all the cameras and microphones that were listening and filming all the powerful people who visited the Island and the houses. They probably have a new Epstein already.
was going to say this.. open sourcing Chinese models will enforce Chinese dominance instead of reducing it. When an open Chinese model becomes the best alternative to inaccessible closed US models guess what everybody will start to use. And that same open model may embed certain narratives and values that please the Chinese government.
Ya. You know enough about China to know: would they be willing to sell users outside of China models that aren't fully pro-China (and won't deflect on tough questions)? Or would that be dirty money that they wouldn't want anyone to make?
Like if they could release Ch-ythos 6 tomorrow BUT it had Western ideals, would they take the fame, clout, attention, & profit, or stick to the party line?
(hope the monolithic brush is appropriate, considering, I mean it's an impressive system/country even if I have my own strong preferences - also I've taken as true reporting about their models deflecting etc. on sensitive topics)
Call it open weights if you must. But even with OSS just because you have the source code doesn't mean your machine is high performance enough to run it usefully this has always been true.
No they didn’t. After Trump started making noise about their CEO, Lip-bu Tan, being Chinese they then took the shares at a “…discount to the current market price.”[1]
And the money for this _deal_ was primarily from the CHIPS act funds they were already awarded but had not been sent to them yet
> Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips.[1]
This was at gunpoint from the government’s monopoly on violence.
The government had passed a law appropriating funds to subsidize semiconductor manufacturing in the US and spent some of it buying intel stock. How is that the government seizing Intel at gunpoint? I mean aside from the libertarian argument that the taxation necessary to raise those funds is theft?
Why would you think nationalising is a violent process?
As soon as the nation owns enough stock to profit from government decisions (and to compound the influence of those decisions) you essentially have a partially nationalised business.
10% of OpenAI might easily be enough to reach a meaningful "partially nationalised" threshold, once you factor in any holdings in federal pension plans and the active level of government policymaking.
It is very clear Sam Altman wants this, too, because this whole "take 10%" thing in Trump's mind was his idea back in early 2025, and OpenAI have been following up on it recently.
reply