this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
17 points (94.7% liked)
Futurology
1942 readers
132 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At this point I wonder is the Chinese government executing some strategy in the background. If they are, and its to weaken America's tech lead, it's working.
Then again, why open-source everything and give its power so freely to everyone? Many people would have thought hoarding power to try and be No 1, as the US is doing, is better game play.
Well... At this point it begins to be debatable whether big tech is its own worst enemy or not. I mean, I'm sure there are competitions that wants to fill their shoes, but at this point big data seems to be alienating everyone and their brother.
Yes, & their embrace of the orange failed businessman will come back to bite them on the backside.
He's already handed China global leadership in the energy transition, likely the biggest industry in human history, that the Chinese will make trillion from in decades to come.
Yeah but our oligarchs are richer 🤡
Nothing new, though. They always do whatever they can get away with, by the smallest margin. And optimize for short term profit, or whatever the stakeholers/investors like. Sustainability is somewhere low on the agenda... At least that's how it seems to me if I look at big tech.
They are:
They have a coordinated strategy that includes AI, robotics etc for quite some time now. And the government (CCP) invests lots of money and coordinates research and funding.
I'm not sure if their specific goal is to weaken anyone else. They just strive to lead and dominate key technology...
I could easily believe its true, though if so, I'm puzzled by their tactics.
Open-sourcing like this seems profoundly decentralizing and democratizing, not tendencies I'd associate with the CCP.
The models are open source meaning you can download them and run them. But the training data and code to train the model is not. So, they stills control the model, as there is no way to replicate it.
So if you can't replicate it, it by definition isn't open source, is it?
The model is, in the sense you can modify it. Further train it, integrate in your app, etc. But the recipe to make the model is not.
And yes, it's less open source than we can think at first sight.
Isn't every software binary open source then? Since you can open it in a hex editor and modify it
But tou don't have permission to do. And hacking a binary is much more difficult than specializing a model, for instance.
Yeah, that's kind of AI companies' definition of open source... Other companies just have "open" in their name for historical reasons. The FSF doesn't really agree ( https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-is-working-on-freedom-in-machine-learning-applications ) and neither do I. It's "open weight". Or I'd need to see the datasets and training scripts as well.
Yeah, "open weight" seems a more appropriate label. It still seems better than a fully proprietary system, but calling it open source without clarification is misleading.