Comment by nater5000
14 hours ago
>I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models in their business operations due to security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns.
Correct. And they're likely very correct in the belief.
When people on the internet claim that frontier labs are done for because Chinese open-weight models exist, they really don't appreciate that the people spending the money do not want to hear "we can just run it cheaper ourselves!" Any software engineer with even a few years of experience knows that phrase is absurd, and executives are simply not interested in the risks associated with such an endeavour when they can just buy the solution outright.
Consumers will have access to open-weight models just like how consumers have access to Linux. But you can just go look at the market share of operating systems to see why something being free and openly available doesn't matter to executives who just wants to get things done and is willing to pay a premium to a trusted business to do the work for them.
And none of that even touches the fact that these frontier labs have only ever been in-front of open-weight alternatives. Again, if you're an executive, and you're questioning if you should pay a premium for a better version of a tool which you presume is important for your company's ability to compete, then the answer is immediately obvious: pay the premium or risk falling behind competition who is willing to pay the premium. And when you're talking about global companies who can pay these bills without it being significant enough to even show up on a quarterly financial statement, then it's an obvious sell.
Linux is actually a pretty poignant example here because Linux is not a "hobby" or "homegrown" operating system. Every server everywhere just about is running linux. When these software companies, who by the way are the ones who will be using AI, build software, they target Linux. They build their software to run on Linux containers then deploy them to Linux servers. If not their own, then servers running on the biggest cloud providers which all use... Linux.
The piece I think we're missing is that, currently, AI is for software development. It theoretically has other uses, but nobody has found much of a way to capitalize on them. For the time being, most of the money being made is in models and harnesses for software development. There's already precedent here to use more open/cheaper solutions.
Not to mention, if you make data security guarantees or have specific contracts, you can't even use US providers anyway.
>But you can just go look at the market share of operating systems to see why something being free and openly available doesn't matter to executives who just wants to get things done and is willing to pay a premium to a trusted business to do the work for them.
That's why most of the internet runs on Windows IIS rather than Linux or BSD. That's why everyone here is running a VM on their Mac that hosts Windows containers to do development in.
> executives are simply not interested in the risks associated with such an endeavour when they can just buy the solution outright
I think you're missing two things here.
1. The margin by which a hosted product is operationally superior to self hosting an open source alternative is precisely calibrated. The SaaS provider has no reason to invest beyond the point were they can reliably make the sale.
2. Self hosted open source solutions come with a big bonus re: the ability to read and modify their code. But realistically ain't nobody got time for that.
AI upsets the apple cart in both cases. It's now far easier to manage locally hosted open source solutions, which means that in order to maintain the favorable effort ratio for making a sale, products must all get significantly better than their open source alternatives. That's gonna be a slow process involving innovative product owners. AI is getting better faster than it can happen.
Also, since AI is trained on the open source code, it's very good at integrating open source components. Previously nobody was bothering to gain that kind of mastery over their tools but now you can leverage it right out of the gate--but only if you're using projects that are in your assistant's training data. Maintaining a moat around a software product has always been orthogonal to making your product useful, but as we lean on AI more, it'll get worse. The more you protect your IP, the more its usability degrades. This was always true, but now it doubly true.
Executives may want to pay for a solution to their problems. But the companies that might provide those solutions no longer have a sustainable path.
The future of software is as a tool, not as a product or a service.
There are times I wonder if the "just use China!" sentiment is astroturfing. That'd certainly explain why there's a lot of calls for that in the face of China's long and storied history of hacking Western networks.
It's generally understood that for better or for worse, if you're working on anything (not just IT) that is security-sensitive, you're going to have restrictions on what can and cannot be done that may seem absurd at first, but hold up to scrutiny once more thoroughly examined. I would say that you don't even need to thoroughly examine this particular restriction. I have prod data at work that I can't give to humans outside of the United States. Not in India, not in the UK, not even in Canada. Clients insist on these clauses in contracts. This has been a known practice across many fields in this industry for decades.
Now we're suddenly seeing a chorus of posts saying that we should loosen up and send data to a non-human intelligence that was developed by a known geopolitical rival with a history of malicious intrusion on Western networks. Where does that come from?