Comment by gpt5

But different huge companies have different incentives. It is very much in Nvidia’s interest to have me running a powerful open source model on a $4k machine that they sell me.

Nope, that's not true at all in China. Everybody in China is using AI, even the elderlies and the kids. DeepSeek is already earning money.

Who funds the majority of cutting edge scientific research?

Is it companies or is it governments?

If governments around the world see LLMs built from public knowledge as pre-competitive as the public knowledge itself, then why wouldn't they sustainbly fund it?

There's a lot of individual effort of improving the models. See how many finetuned models and LoRAs are there on Hugging Face.

Soo? If they need a better version, the world can pool resources together, form a company that trains the model, then the company goes under and the model becomes open source again.

The way I frame it is like the space race (except probably more consequential). China is collaborating with and encouraging their industry, definitely leaning into the state sponsored NASA route, while the United States fully embraced minting oligarchs that they'll most likely bail out later.

We'll see what happens, but I suspect history will show us that the United States badly fumbled what was a pretty great initial lead. China might have just floored the gas pedal.

> The problem (right now) is that Open Weight models depend right now on huge companies to spend billion of dollars to train and develop them, all backed up by their incentives and their state to support this, while essentially giving away their monetization path.

Imagine approaching fundamental scientific research like that. "Welp, it can't make money, so it won't happen."

There is more to society than capitalism.

Well that's kind of the point of the article. That in order to "win", the US needs an incentive structure that encourages open models.

I'm not sure what that looks like though.

This is precisely why we need more projects like this https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/petals

There's no fundamental reason why models couldn't be developed and trained using community efforts. It might not be as fast and efficient, but it's definitely possible.

Complements.

Why do people always bring up state support when it comes to China? As if the U.S. doesn't provide massive tax breaks and explicit funding to industry?

It's on every tech post about China, as if it gives them some sort of "unfair" advantage.

Don't have a choice, will probably have to go open-weights models as currently, "AI" is gated using 'whatwg cartel' web engines.

In the light of this, I am mechanically a proponent of very good open weights models, which I can download (for instance on on bittorrent) and run, slowly (the price), on local hardware.

That would be for coding.

If china puts its AI models on the same ground than US capital investment funds and big tech financial support (aka Big Tech international finance), they will very probably lose everything (know how, ML and inference infrastructures).

I am also confused by this point. The American government could force OpenAI and Anthropic to open their models, but then they would instantly evaporate, right? It doesn't seem like a choice that they can make, so framing it as a "winning" strategy doesn't make any sense to me. In what world could those companies have existed and opened their models?

In Russian opposition's mostly liberal discussions their school of thought connects several things together (sorry for not going directly to Marx's "General Intellect" and "Fragment on Machines" and using AI summaries instead ) - general idea of communism in China vs. techno-libertarianism of Thiel, Musk and the likes, and the Marx's thinking like:

"Fragment on Machines":

"he explores how human knowledge and collective intellect become embedded into machines, divorcing the worker from their own creativity."

"General Intellect":

"These texts are widely discussed for his concept of the General Intellect—the idea that society's shared, collective knowledge increasingly drives production rather than raw manual labor, and that this knowledge is alienated from workers and used as an instrument of capital."

(note: my point isn't to pass any political judgement here, like what real communism in China or not real, is it good or bad, i just find it interesting that pure political discussions by people with no technical credentials bring AI as a major factor today)

> The problem (right now) is that Open Weight models depend right now on huge companies to spend billion of dollars to train and develop them, all backed up by their incentives and their state to support this, while essentially giving away their monetization path.

Right... and there are two problems with this:

1. Eventually the capabilities of closed-weight models will just vastly outstrip open-weight models if the underlying assumptions about compute and scale needed are mostly on the mark. So you can release open-weight models and they will have great use cases and applications, but ultimately similar to how you don't use an open-source phone or a budget Android phone from Wal-Mart and you buy an iPhone instead, you will see that although they "do the same thing" one product is clearly superior and you just have to pay for it. For this to not be true...

2. then it incentivizes most (all?) companies, American, Chinese, or European to halt development of models because if you spend all the CAPEX and it can just be copied and turned open-source nobody will invest in that. Given that China is not halting development of proprietary models I believe the current strategy and the subsequent approach to release open-weight models is at best a stall tactic, and at worse a sign of desperation.

Open source and the support and development models around it have been great. But folks are a little too dogmatic about it. Open-source software isn't a moral good, and closed-source software isn't a moral wrong either.