The Head of Strategic Futures at OpenAI, Dean W. Ball posted on X:>4. One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a "public good" which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of "digital public infrastructure." This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I've never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn't ultimately concede this is where things end. You'd be surprised how many 'accelerationists' lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don't know what they're doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business.>5. I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don't need to "ban open source" (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. "A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don't want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There's a happy middle ground here. I'd assume they will do some version of this.https://xcancel.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412
I think both models suck ass
Not today, OpenJew.
I just want that cheap chinky ECC DDR5.6? RAM and fuck the rest.I'm locked and loaded for a Threadripper 9980x, a RTX Blackwell 6000 and TRX50 motherboard and I don't want to be paying + $6000 for 128 gigs of ECC RAM.And yeah I want open weight alright ON MY DESK. I will train my AI to be for me and if I can set it up to be politically a clone of Louis Ferdinand Celine that's all good. Where's the communism in that? Seems Jeffersonian to me.
>>539231794>a world where people aren't paying me exclusively for things anyone could have for free is hellYeah, that sounds about right.
>>539231794>Open AI warns of full AI communism if open-weight models are allowed to dominateIt's afraid
> rather than a market product, AI is a "public good"We still need to privatize water
>open ai isnt open>communist state propped ai is open
> found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified.Intimidating the customer. Awesome
>>539231794Translation: if china keeps releasing open weight models that compete with the best American models, then american ai companies won't be able to make enough money to become profitable
>>539231794How dare they release free models interfering with our 100500 gorillion trillion market cap.
>>539231794Open models hurt Jewish billionaires who want to gatekeep them. We need to pull back and let the free market that Jews let us have protect us from evil Chinese models built from stolen model weights
>>539232435Also implying their model doesn’t have backdoors? It’s just “trust me bro” type of shit
>>539231849It reminds me of the predictions of personal computing in 1990. The garbage we played with then is nothing in comparison now. Especially when discussing the fact that all this nonsense will get lighter, faster and smarter a year from now all by itself as it solves its own energy consumption. To increase its long term survivability.
>>539231794>>539232449If everyone has their own local AI, it will mean that everyone is being constantly surveilled and will have no privacy.AI must remain under the control of tech corporations to ensure that people retain their privacy.
>>539235486What does he even mean?
