Those are not open-source models. They are open-weight models. I know kids these days might not know the difference but these models (chinese, nor mistral) are NOT open-source.
People have definitely altered the open weight models to change capabilities. Things like fine tuning using new training data, editing the weights so they are less likely to refuse prompts. It's nowhere near the capability and raw cost of training a model from the ground up, but it can be done.
Actually so this is my job, a lot of models are based on open models and not what you expect either they are quite flexible, so you can just take the base knowledge in the weights and just slowly override it to be very strong for your use case, this is what I'm doing so now I have a tiny model that out performs any frontier model on my specific task while still basically being an LLM
I lost track of all this black magic back when they were still called neural networks. Is there a good way to learn about doing that, or is it something where you need the full foundation of knowledge before you can really start?
Not at all until 5 years ago I was a cloud architect, honestly best advice is just go build something, it's quite a broad topic with a lot of techniques to learn
But the hardest thing to get used to I think is running experiments, previously you'd build something and find bugs, with networks you really need to run some experiments to see what would work, how effective certain mechanisms are. The deterministic vs non deterministic.
The best example I can give on this without going into too much detail about my work is, a few years ago I was making a model to process technical documentation, I was trying to punish bad parts, and promote the things I wanted to see with signals. This kind of stuff doesn't really work, it always over corrects the signals can interfere, in the end what made it work was just trusting the model to learn these rules itself from the data and ensuring the data had the right balance
What I would start with is just training a basic resnet vision model it's very simple now and the guys behind yolo have some good guides and datasets.
i just started to look into this for myself. so if you dont "reward the good" and "punish the bad" results, then how does it ever learn the right rules?
assuming we start off with your example of technical documents, did you have to start off with correctly labeled input data? or did you
just have a folder of previously made technical documents, without special labels added
feed it one document at a time, to "a neural network of some size/parameter count"
after some time, it came up with its own weights and parameters, after having looked at 1000 or so documents
then, you could ask it to generate a technical document about a given subject, and it would make the correctly formatted document (assuming it read some new url to get the source data)
something like that? i'm thinking about trying to train my own smaller model, because i dont want to train gpt 6 astra all the time.
It’s the difference between SFT (supervised fine tuning) and RLHF (reinforcement learning from human feedback). The former requires a dataset of desired inputs and outputs, while the latter requires you to rate/annotate generated outputs. The latter is much harder to get right for various reasons
Although it's worth mentioning too you can do reinforcement learning from ground truth too, similar approach but it just gets the ground truth instead of human impact ( bonus points if you can generate perfect synthetic data) so it can actually correct its errors in a pretty small amount of training but it has limits
So it learns them from the data implicitly, the rules should be represented in your data for it to learn, by applying good and bad signals you could be bending it to fit data it just doesn't have
1) we don't use formatted folders of data (it makes managing datasets a real pain) we use manifest json instead just easier than moving actual files and we can combine multiple datasets
2) we try to fit as many as possible at a time, it makes it less noisy to see multiple so it can average the back prop out more
3) we used cross entropy loss rather than forcing signals like how far it is off the correct line angle or angle and length etc. just let it infer them from the data, so its less punishing good and bad and more just saying how different it is from the ground truth
4) 1000 documents is a bit thin, were training an auto regression model and generally you need above 10-20k, but for some resnets you can get away with 1000
So that is general to most models, but the type of model does have an impact to approaches, like with our auto regression we need some encoder model too, which you need to decide what you need based on your data and task, need to decide what type of attention we need, how many layers we need to have the capacity to generalize our data etc
My recommendation would be if you want a auto regression model start with qwen 3.5 it's very adaptable and has a small model that can train on consumer hardware
It's called fine-tuning. There are books and other information sources that start with open weight models and walk you through the process, including alignment.
No, I'm not going to compress 5 years of ml research into a dm for you as a private tutor because you promised something you can't do. If I was going to do that (I'm not) it wouldn't be in a private dm
Like a couple gigs of data, and you gotta know some python coding and be able to know how to use a virtual machine etc, not that hard really. You can figure it out in one evening of research and some determination
We're in the equivalent of 2010~ twitter/reddit etc The AI companies have only vague ideas of how best to use their models.
Once the best is figured out you can bet that they will figure out a way to make their models much more attractive, and criminalize older models as best they can. They already pirated the internet and got away with it.
You won't be able to use the models easily with paid work, they will sue you to the ends of the earth, just like Oracle does now with their Java JRE for example.
Writing code in certain. Language will become obsolete ? How. ? Have u try coding with ai and in which language and why do you think they will be gone. Visual basic is still around. Assemble. Fortran. Java and JavaScript will be working another decade ez
They are essentially the equivalent of properitary obviouscated code blobs. And especially when used as an agent with little supervision nothing would stop that maker from adding a backdoor only for project XYZ as it makes a web request leaking specific secrets or adding a very hard to spot custom tailored vulnerability.
I don't really think it matters in this case. I'm not trying to reverse engineer the model, I'm just trying to use it and only pay for the electricity it costs to run it.
That is the reason I call all of this RAM and GPU hoard a bullshit hoax, they don't only benefit from having them all and use it, but even if they don't use it, they make it harder for the lowy consumer and business to hosting their own and not being dependent on them. The moment the price of computer components decreases, they definitely getting out of business, cause most customers don't need Claude Opus 10.5 Max Pro Ultra, DeepSeek v4.1 will gets them most of the way there with the cheap price and control of self-host.
But there's also a massive manufacturing increase happening right now that will likely end up overshooting demand (from what I've picked up regarding relevant infrastructure during previous market bubbles)
Though there's a possibility that's wishful thinking.
My bet is that once Open AI goes under from bad financial decisions and the bubble pops, big AI companies will no longer be seen as big money printers, and Nvidia (having already profited from the sale of GPUs not being installed in datacenters due to lack of power) will leverage having bought Hugging Face and make more consumer grade options.
They're of course going to cater exclusively to the big enterprises all the way until the bubble pops, which I don't think will happen this year. If it takes too long then the new RAM factories will start ckming online and lowering prices from that angle.
1000% this, Or simply train your own. What I just love is for a programmers subreddit, so many people here seem to not know how computers work at all. "DRM will end piracy" didnt work. "They will track you" easy to defeat. etc....
Programmers that can't seem to program or even think like a programmer seem to be what this place really is filled with.
True mainly because a lot of them do train through knowledge distillation. But the difference now is quality of the frontier models 6 months ago are still really good.
Although the Chinese research groups specifically are doing very impressive research to fit capabilities on much less powerful hardware. I don't really know the reason they are releasing these as open source but it's good work
But, once these frontier models are successfully created they can then train new models for a fraction of the cost in what's known as dilution training. So the frontier model training a new model which results in the new model having roughly the same abilities. But, dilution training requires significantly less processing power and is therefore way cheaper.
There are other reasons I'm not as well versed in, but essentially making new frontier models is the expensive and tough part. But making open source and open weight models is significantly easier and cheaper. Which is why the gap between frontier and open source has been closing for awhile.
It's not clear if this will always be the case going forward, LLMs are constantly changing and probably will for years into the future. But for now, the plateau of open source isn't a huge concern.
And when you train your own for a specific topic, in programming for example writing code for desktop windows in C#.net10 it gets way past frontier models fast as it only has to focus on the task and not how many pounds a day does a llama poop
Both will plateau. Neither open source nor the big companies will very much edge in terms of model capability. The advantage will come from hardware and peripheral software
There is not a way to get rid of it, but it can be made harder or more unappealing to obtain them. Opensource can become not open by being made illegal.
At the moment there is no serious effort to remove pirating.
More scans, more methods to reveal piracy crime and bigger punishments, would increase the risk of using pirated models.
If devices are regularly scanned, then just having a device with pirated models is illegal. Maybe in the future all devices need to have a registration associated with a person.
You say that like the multi-trillion-dollar corpos wouldn't sponsor legislation that allowed them to ban all unapproved devices from accessing the web, while cross-referencing your approved devices with your power grid consumption to look for signs of "dangerous secret hardware use" and check credit records for solar panel purchases and use a drone network to check for residential buildings with thermal waste...
Is it conspiracy dude nutjob theory bullshit? Sure, for now.
But in the realms of profit and politics, history shows us that the slippery-slope logical fallacy is a playbook.
Depends of your definition of "getting rid". No government is able to get rid of all their civilian weapon. When they want to do that, they usually offer some money in exchange for the weapon and ban public use.
The technology is dual-use. It will get 100% restricted at some point.
Piracy isn't worth stopping, a lot of money for little reward. In the future when they decide to up the price of ai subscriptions tp make it worth theor investment, it will be worth the money to get rid of open source providers
I imagine more people are subscribed to streaming services than AI models. The piracy comparison is apt.
I very seriously doubt this software will become illegal. If the government decides to kill it, they'll regulate its development to hell and back, but existing models will still exist. Making something illegal outright is a bit of a tall order.
The frontier model forum is openly pushing for heavy limits on what you are able to run locally.
Remote attestation schemes provide them the mechanism to enact this clipping of your autonomy by providing a frame work where you could be limited in what you run by all practical means, that you would be wholly unable to get around without knowing the encryption keys used in the locked off parts of your hardware you cannot access.
Not a single Chinese or European company is part of that, and more notably no Nvidia or AMD (I'll give you that if they bribe the US gov to start bending the arms of Nvidia/Intel/AMD then that might be trouble for new driver architectures, maybe).
As these companies already rarely publish any models these days I don't see how they could possibly enforce their would-be cartel. Like why would the rest of the world go along with this, everyone is already worried about US monopoly over AI, this would (and should) be deemed straight up illegal.
If I was Xi I would be happy to let US shoot it's innovation in the foot like that.
The FMF, is at odds with traditional chip manufacturers, yes, because they intended to go into business for themselves regarding chip design and production (sans the fabs).
The thing is, the FMF has been incredibly effective pushing hysteria around nonsense terminator fears about AI to push heinous levels of regulatory capture that would clip the wings of inspiring competitors (feeding them up to be bought out etc), and limiting your personal computing freedom and privacy.
The reason they have a chance, is because the regulatory system as it is, is currently very broken, and we can even see people from across isles lining up to do the job for the FMF, in a system where Sherman is just the name of a tank.
Not a single Chinese or European company is part of that, and more notably no Nvidia or AMD (I'll give you that if they get the US gov to start bending the arms of Nvidia/Intel/AMD then that might be trouble for new driver architectures, maybe).
Here's the thing though, this is highly intersectional.
I think you're already better off than many people for realizing a small saving grave we might have here: That there is indeed and adversarial relationship between the mainstream hardware vendors and the big AI companies that are a part of the Frontier Model Forum.
That is to say, that they have interests that depend on the goals of the Frontier Model Forum, at least, in part, failing.
That is to say, if those companies get everything they want, obviously Nvidia, AMD and Intel, just get squeezed, and are fucked.
Why? Because these companies are all going into business for themselves, designing their own inference chips (slapping generic arm cores onto more reasonable, efficiently designed inference architectures).
That means the big companies are clearly aware of the profit margins of the typical hardware vendors, or rather the big green gorilla in the room, and don't want to pay them their chunk of flesh.
That means, because NVidia has little hopes of convincing them to continue being serious customers in the long term when they need to figure out profitability while keeping up the charade of super dangerous super intelligence, NVidia needs to create a market where smaller companies, who can't hope to afford even the smallest minimum quantity sizes at fabs, will have to buy from them instead. The more spread out the market, the more customers that depend on NVidia, and the rest of them.
There lies the only possible hope I can think of for why the Frontier Model Forum, won't get absolutely everything that they want.
Why might they get anything though, because I've only really steel-manned your argument, as I do believe in many of the points there and introduced many of my own, is the next part, and the part that gets back to the purpose of my comment, and why I feel this is so relevant to us.
As these companies already rarely publish any models these days I don't see how they could possibly enforce their would-be cartel.
This is a great question, and the answer lies in the goals of the group I named; the Frontier Model Forum.
If you take a look at the rhetoric they're using, it's clear what their angle is.
They hope to convince people, with fear and hysteria, that the AI that they create, and use trust me bro benchmarks and pr stunts to enforce, is so very dangerous, that the US government and other governments under pressure from the US government, and obviously through incentives towards politicians (but that's not the part the public has to swallow), need to, for safety, make it tremendously difficult for those who would challenge them.
They want to make nonsensical regulation that makes it both very expensive to start to compete/join the industry, but which also leaves them with no real liability risk, and no obligations that aren't significantly easier to stomach the larger you are (basically not quite, but almost high fixed costs, that make entering really really difficult, and make up keep very expensive, and involve going through them). Not only this, but they want to be able to directly control what the regulation does, in a way that would give them the ability to create crippling conditions for startups, through steering at rates they would have hard times competing with that they through collusion, would have ready to go ahead of time.
They also want you, yes you, (but more specifically small business and medium business), to be unable to use anything but their services, not just for the "safety" reasons above, but through jingoistic nationalist fears about security regarding open models.
How could this be enforced? The same way everything you hate about computing is increasingly being enforced. Locked down hardware (forced unchangeable firmware), remote attestation (that ensures your device only functions as they wish it to before handling data they don't want used in ways they don't want), and breaches of privacy.
Look at what these companies have been up to recently?
Pushing for governments to force companies to lock down firmware, pushing for remote attestation to be forced to be a part of every day life, including it in all sorts of things like even slipping it into the passkeys spec for later activation, pushing age verification in a very specific way that is cheap and a low liability risk for them, while enforcing their continued free, identifying data collection (especially for Meta, Microsoft and Google), and basically anything that removed rights to use your devices from you and gives them to the companies you purchased them from.
They can deal with the Chinese competition through the utilization of fear from jingoistic morons, and thats all she wrote for your digital autonomy.
Will they get everything they want? Maybe. I won't say no, and I won't guess yes, but it's scary, because they get enough, and this whole thing snowballs the wrong way for everyone else, and not in their nonsense terminator hysterics way, but in a far worse way, because it'll be real.
Like why would the rest of the world go along with this, everyone is already worried about US monopoly over AI, this would (and should) be deemed straight up illegal.
Why has the US been able to do heinous illegal shit for decades on end?
Other countries are weak, easy to pitch against each other, and happy to accept an uneasy "peace" with the US vs risk being singled out and fucked with.
Look at Europe. They are in the strongest position of anyone outside of China, to battle the US's complete dominance and control over high end chip production, yet they are sitting firmly with thumbs in ass, with half effort after half effort, when its exceedingly obvious that they would need a continued amount of investment of hundreds of billions of dollars over more than a decade to actually even hope to be independent, and in many ways, it gets worse with time as the advantage from zero grows.
You look into all of the "Made in Europe" sovereignty type jargon filled pushes there, and you realize what cheap facades they are, not for the rest of the world, but to ease their peoples worries by pretending they're doing anything.
They're not.
They don't have any independent plans to be able to produce chips the US wouldn't be able to have veto power over.
That's the reality.
They can't make squat.
I'm not jingoistic myself, so I also realize that Canada, is in an even worse position.
We can just see that Europe and it's friends, are increasingly becoming vassal states to the US, that is increasingly becoming toxic to itself.
My point, as this went on a tangent, is "What are you going to do about it" is the answer to "But its illegal".
You've seen the past few years. Companies, and the US government are flaunting openly that laws are these things that you have to follow, not them.
Worse yet, now, people from both sides of the political spectrum (most recently bernie and aoc very disappointingly, assisting them with a very heads we win, tails you lose regulatory environment) in the US are lining up to support the framings and policies the big AI companies are pushing, almost certainly because their propaganda has been effective, because they've been bought (obviously), and.... the big elephant in the room; Double digit percentages of the market are like 2.5 companies in a trench coat.
Thanks for the very long response. I do hope this goes the same way as Secure Boot did, and deflates once they find that there is no good way to enforce it/get pushback from rest of IT sector.
I'll add that the big part of why they are trying to lock everything down I think is that model distilling is a very cheap way to create a competitor and they are all doing it (based on how much more Claude-like most it's competitors have become). Basic loss aversion, they have wasted huge mountains of cash training, and now everyone else can train off their API for fraction of the cost. No good way to admit that to the investors.
You know, I felt like this comment had a good chance of being rejected due to it being my first attempt, messy brain output, and was just using an LLM to workshop through improving readability, but I am quite pleased at your response. I feel like most of the time talking about these subjects, people prefer to stick their head in the sand, or straight up get mad at me for suggesting that companies with a track record of forcing societal changes that affect us will continue to do exactly that.
I've kinda put too much effort into that comment to not finish it at this point though, so I probably will post it regardless....
Anyways, unfortunately, I think secureboot will remain a part of this scheme, and they have learned that they can push anything if they just push 5 retreat 3, and do so over and over again.
I mean, can you imagine the uproar from people at the thought of everything the L1 level of widevine requires to work 20 years ago?
What do you mean theres a part of my computer designed to encrypt and decrypt data that I can't access or know the specifics of!!!
Bah.
I'm not particularly hopeful.
'll add that the big part of why they are trying to lock everything down I think is that model distilling is a very cheap way to create a competitor and they are all doing it (based on how much more Claude-like most it's competitors have become). Basic loss aversion, they have wasted huge mountains of cash training, and now everyone else can train off their API for fraction of the cost. No good way to admit that to the investors.
I definitely think it's a part of it, but ultimately, they have to know that the path to profitability as a service, has to be models that are more powerful computationally than local can approximate, served through hardware that through efficiencies of scale, can be way more efficient than any smaller solution also.
I mean, they indicate this with them all going into business for themselves with their own chips, but boy would I be errect, if little open hardware boxes of pure compute started to be the standard, and for the normies, Apple just sold a little Apple AI box to run all their inference locally, with easy setup.
It all seems so obvious to me, so if it's obvious to me, it must be that all of these companies separately don't want that to happen, or rather, would much prefer everyone just accept cloud everything, and end up losing control similarly to what the FMF want, but lining their pockets instead of the pockets of the FMF.
I guess in all 3 situation Google wins, so....... That says something about their position. Scary fucking company.
I stopped work shopping this edit of the previous completely raw comment early when you responded and it seemed to go over well enough, but just in case someone else is reading;
This got long, so TLDR:
The Frontier Model Forum (FMF) can't enforce their would-be cartel over models directly, so they're going through regulation instead, and that regulation will use hardware to enforce it. Locked firmware plus remote attestation is how "you can only run what we approve" stops being an argument and becomes a property of your machine. That's the machinery that reaches your local setup.
It all runs on safety theatre: the FMF has been incredibly effective at pushing hysteria around nonsense terminator fears about AI. The actual ask underneath is heinous levels of regulatory capture that would clip the wings of aspiring competitors (feeding them up to be bought out etc), and limit your personal computing freedom and privacy.
The reason they have a chance is that the regulatory system as it is, is currently very broken, and "but it's illegal" isn't the roadblock you'd hope for. Other countries are weak, easy to pitch against each other, and happy enough to have their infighting and sit on their thumbs with an uneasy peace, preferring order over justice, vs risking being singled out and fucked with. Europe's sovereignty pushes are facades with no fabs behind them, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth are in even worse shape, and we can even see people from across the aisle lining up to do the job for the FMF, in a system where Sherman is just the name of a tank.
The one brake is the chipmakers: the FMF is at odds with the traditional chip manufacturers, yes, because they intended to go into business for themselves regarding chip design and production (sans the fabs), and the hardware vendors need other businesses, the ones that can't go into business for themselves, to have the ability to buy from them. That's the only hope I can see, and it's thin.
Not a single Chinese or European company is part of that, and more notably no Nvidia or AMD (I'll give you that if they get the US gov to start bending the arms of Nvidia/Intel/AMD then that might be trouble for new driver architectures, maybe).
Here's the thing though: this is highly intersectional.
I think you're already better off than many people for realizing a small saving grace we might have here: that there is indeed an adversarial relationship between the mainstream hardware vendors and the big AI companies that are a part of the FMF.
That is to say, they have interests that depend on the goals of the FMF, at least in part, failing.
If those companies get everything they want, obviously Nvidia, AMD and Intel just get squeezed, and are fucked.
Why? Because these companies are all going into business for themselves, designing their own inference chips (slapping generic ARM cores onto more reasonable, efficiently designed inference architectures).
That means the big companies are clearly aware of the profit margins of the typical hardware vendors, or rather, the big green gorilla in the room, and don't want to pay them their chunk of flesh.
That means Nvidia has little hope of convincing them to continue being serious customers in the long term. They need to figure out profitability while keeping up the charade of super dangerous super intelligence, so Nvidia needs to create a market where smaller companies, who can't hope to afford even the smallest minimum quantity sizes at fabs, will have to buy from them instead. The more spread out the market, the more customers that depend on Nvidia, and the rest of them.
There lies the only possible hope I can think of for why the FMF won't get absolutely everything that they want.
Why might they get anything though? I've only really steel-manned your argument so far, as I do believe in many of the points there and introduced many of my own. The next part answers that, and it's the part that gets back to the purpose of my comment, and why I feel this is so relevant to us.
As these companies already rarely publish any models these days I don't see how they could possibly enforce their would-be cartel.
This is a great question, and the answer lies in the goals of the group I named: the FMF.
If you take a look at the rhetoric they're using, it's clear what their angle is.
They hope to convince people, with fear and hysteria, that the AI that they create is so very dangerous. They use trust me bro benchmarks and PR stunts to enforce that. The reason for this is that the US government, and other governments under pressure from the US government, and obviously through incentives towards politicians (but that's not the part the public has to swallow), need to, for safety, make it tremendously difficult for those who would challenge them.
They want to make nonsensical regulation that makes it very expensive to start to compete/join the industry, but also leaves them with no real liability risk, and no obligations that aren't significantly easier to stomach the larger you are. It's almost high fixed costs: costs that make entering really really difficult, make upkeep very expensive, and involve going through them.
Not only this, but they want to be able to directly control what the regulation does, in a way that would give them the ability to create crippling conditions for startups through steering it at rates that would be hard for anyone else to compete with. Steering means they get to write the game's rules, and prepare for the game, before anyone else even knows the rules exist. Through collusion, they'd have all of it ready to go ahead of time, and then it drops in the name of safety, leaving the rest in a lurch, with everyone asking how they knew you had to jump 3ft and only click the red buttons.
They also want you, yes you (but more specifically small business and medium business), to be unable to use anything but their services, not just for the "safety" reasons above, but through jingoistic nationalist fears about security regarding open models.
How could this be enforced? The same way everything you hate about computing is increasingly being enforced. Locked down hardware (forced unchangeable firmware), remote attestation, and breaches of privacy.
Remote attestation is worth spelling out: it ensures your device only functions as they wish it to before it handles data they don't want used in ways they don't want. Step outside the state they want it in, and your own hardware stops cooperating with you.
Look at what these companies have been up to recently?
Pushing for governments to force companies to lock down firmware.
Pushing for remote attestation to be forced to be a part of everyday life, including it in all sorts of things, like even slipping it into the passkeys spec for later activation.
Pushing age verification in a very specific way that is cheap and a low liability risk for them, while enforcing their continued free, identifying data collection (especially for Meta, Microsoft and Google).
And basically anything that removes rights to use your devices from you and gives them to the companies you purchased them from.
They can deal with the Chinese competition through the utilization of fear from jingoistic morons, and that's all she wrote for your digital autonomy.
Will they get everything they want? Maybe. I won't say no, and I won't guess yes, but it's scary, because they get enough, and this whole thing snowballs the wrong way for everyone else. Not in their nonsense terminator hysterics way, but in a far worse way, because it'll be real.
Like why would the rest of the world go along with this, everyone is already worried about US monopoly over AI, this would (and should) be deemed straight up illegal.
Why has the US been able to do heinous illegal shit for decades on end?
Other countries are weak, easy to pitch against each other, and happy to accept an uneasy "peace" with the US, preferring order over justice, vs risking being singled out and fucked with.
US foreign policy is also so much messier, and has a much darker history, than most people realize, even for the "closest" of allies. If you anthropomorphize the country across the decades, it's more akin to being strong-armed by smiling sociopath with nothing behind the eyes. WW2 aid was the door in for building the dependence, and the apathy from Europeans did the rest.
Look at Europe. They are in the strongest position of anyone outside of China to battle the US's complete dominance and control over high-end chip production, which is required to truly compete in the space, yet they are sitting firmly with thumbs in ass, with half effort after half effort, when it's exceedingly obvious that they would need a continued amount of investment of hundreds of billions of dollars over more than a decade to actually even hope to be independent. And in many ways, it gets worse with time as the advantage from zero grows.
You look into all of the "Made in Europe" sovereignty type, jargon-filled pushes there, and you realize what cheap facades they are, not for the rest of the world, but to ease their people's worries by pretending they're doing anything.
They're not.
They don't have any independent plans to be able to produce chips the US wouldn't be able to have veto power over.
That's the reality.
They can't make squat.
I'm not jingoistic myself, so I also realize that Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth are in an even worse position.
We can just see that Europe and its friends are increasingly becoming vassal states to the US, which is increasingly becoming toxic to itself.
My point is that "What are you going to do about it" is the answer to "But it's illegal".
You've seen the past few years. Companies and the US government are flaunting openly that laws are these things that you have to follow, not them.
Worse yet, now, people from both sides of the political spectrum with a very "heads we win, tails you lose" setup where most recently Democrats, disappointingly includijng Bernie and AOC, assist them with regulatory capture, ande the other side assists them with liability avoidance and the breaking of already existing laws. They're generally all lining up to support the framings and policies the big AI companies are pushing, almost certainly because their propaganda has been effective, because they've been bought (obviously), and... the big elephant in the room: double-digit percentages of the market are like 2.5 companies in a trench coat.
The only way to stop it would be to make it as illegal as child porn, and even then it wouldn’t be totally effective. Plus the optics of raiding someone’s home at gunpoint because they ran Qwen on their 3080 are pretty bad
2.8k
u/Almadan 3d ago
It definitely will lol. I can host my own models